Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords]. (By Order)

Order for Third reading read.

Amendment agreed to

Read the Third time, and passed, as amended.

Ordered,
That the Lords Message [26th October] relating to the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [Lords], King's College London Bill [Lords], and the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] be now considered.

LOCH LEVEN AND LOCHABER WATER POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

United Leeds Hospital Trust

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of underfunding of the United Leeds Hospital trust in this financial year on waiting lists. [38212]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Leeds health authority is not underfunded. It has been allocated £4.5 million over and above its weighted capitation target for this year.

Mr. Battle: Does the Minister realise that Leeds local medical committee revealed in a recent survey that, contrary to his claims, orthopaedic outpatients have to wait for between 44 weeks, minimum, and 144 weeks for a first appointment? Whatever the reason for that, is it not totally unacceptable? Is it not time that the Minister took action to ensure that his health trusts provided for the health needs of our constituents—or will they be told that they must continue to suffer in silence?

Mr. Sackville: I certainly agree that a wait of 44 weeks is unacceptable; we have made that clear—to Leeds health authority, as well—by setting a target that no one should wait more than 26 weeks. The hon. Gentleman knows that waits for orthopaedic treatment in Leeds are not new, and that action is being taken to ensure more accurate and better referring by general practitioners, taking that into account.
The House should know, however, that those waits are not representative of waiting lists across all specialties in Leeds. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen the overall figures, and he will know that 86 per cent. of patients are seen within 13 weeks and 96 per cent. within 26 weeks. That is close to the target that we set.

Mrs. Roe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the patients charter means that, for the first time ever, patients, whether in Leeds or elsewhere in the country, have a guarantee of the maximum time that they should have to wait for an NHS operation?

Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we look forward to all health authorities meeting those targets.

Mr. Barron: Do not patients, not only those in the United Leeds Hospital trust but in hospitals throughout the country, wait longer than the Department's patients charter standards? In the quarter ended 30 June 1995, the targets for new out-patients waiting times were not met—neither the 13-week nor the 26-week standard. Would not patients in Leeds and throughout the country be better served if some of the millions of pounds spent on internal market bureaucracy were spent instead on front-line patient care?

Mr. Sackville: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to notice that, over the past year, the number of people waiting more than 12 months for non-emergency treatment in Leeds has fallen from more than 1,200 to 200. That represents considerable progress, when not only non-emergency but emergency demand has increased sharply. It is about time that Leeds and other health authorities received some credit from the Opposition.

GP Fundholding Practices (London)

Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fundholding practices there are currently in Greater London. [38213]

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Three hundred and twenty-five general practitioners' practices in Greater London are currently fundholders, serving over a quarter of the population. This is due to rise to 578 practices serving 40 per cent. of the population from next April.

Mr. Merchant: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pioneering work in fundholding being carried out by Elm House surgery in my constituency? Is he aware of the popularity of that work with patients? Does that popularity partly explain the dramatic leap in the number of applications for fundholding status in London this summer?

Mr. Malone: I am aware of the practice to which my hon. Friend refers, and I met a number of the practitioners involved when I visited Beckenham hospital in my hon. Friend's constituency some time ago. We want such services to be extended throughout London—in the teeth, sadly, of opposition from Labour.

NHS Budget

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the NHS budget was spent


on management, administrative and clerical staff (a) in 1989 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available. [38214]

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the variation of the proportion of NHS trusts' budgets spent on management and administration. [38224]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Expenditure on management and administrative staff as a proportion of total hospital and community health service expenditure was 8.8 per cent. in 1989–90 and 9.8 per cent. in 1993–94. I announced on 11 October that I am seeking a 5 per cent. cash reduction in the costs of running health authorities and in NHS trust management costs in 1996–1997 compared with planned spending in 1995–1996.

Mr. Hoyle: When the changes were made, we were promised that there would be a growth in efficiency. Instead, there has been a huge growth in bureaucracy, and resources that could have been spent on patient care and medical staff have gone to accountants and managers. How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the squandering of public money that has resulted in waste, inefficiency and more red tape?

Mr. Dorrell: That line would come a great deal better from the Opposition had it not been for the fact that they opposed the abolition of the regional health authorities, which added an extra and unnecessary tier of bureaucracy to the health service.

Mr. Miller: That line comes not just from the Opposition, as the chairman of a large trust in my area wrote to me this morning to point out the differences in the Secretary of State's position now from when he was a junior spokesman in the same Department. Will the Secretary of State now undertake unequivocally to ensure that his Department carries the can for all the inefficiencies which have been built into the system as a result of the ridiculous growth in management expenditure?

Mr. Dorrell: My position on this issue is exactly the same now as it was when I was a junior Minister at the Department of Health, and it is this—the traditional health service was under-managed. That view was shared by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) until she moved to her other responsibilities. We have built up the management function of the health service, and we are now requiring that management function to pass the same tests of efficiency as every other aspect of the health service.

Dame Jill Knight: Is it not the case that efficient management has achieved a much quicker input of patients and much shorter waiting lists, and that trusts hold their management costs at 3 per cent? Is that not extremely good value for money?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is remarkable that the Opposition—or at least the Opposition's previous health spokesman—at least recognised that the traditional health service needed its management function to be strengthened, and yet opposed every single strengthening of that function. They now talk about administrative costs as though they were avoidable.

Yet when we come forward with proposals to abolish excess administrative costs—as we did earlier this year—they oppose them.

Mr. Sims: I commend my right hon. Friend for his attempts to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS. Does he agree that occasional incidents where patients are left on trolleys for unreasonable lengths of time suggest that there is scope for improvement in the quality of management? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to achieve that improvement?

Mr. Dorrell: I announced the squeeze on 11 October because I believe that it is necessary that the management and administration functions in the health service are subject to the same efficiency drive as every other aspect of the service. My hon. Friend referred to patients waiting for admission from accident and emergency departments, and he will know that that is a specific subject on which my predecessor as Secretary of State announced a tightening of patients charter standards, which will be effective from 1 April and towards which trusts are working.

Ms Lynne: Does the Secretary of State agree that, at the same time as so much is being spent on bureaucracy and administration, it is an absolute disgrace that so little is being spent on breast cancer research—£3 million precisely—when 300 women die of breast cancer a week? Can he make some commitment today, on the launch of the UK National Breast Cancer Coalition, that he will do something to address that problem?

Mr. Dorrell: As the hon. Lady has raised the subject of breast cancer on a question about administration costs, we might have expected her to welcome the fact that the national health service is a world leader in the development of a breast cancer screening service. It offers a service to British women that is not available in the huge majority of other equivalent countries. Why did she not mention that fact?

Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in certain parts of England, notably Chorley and South Ribble, the increase in administrative staff that has come about as a result of the opening of Chorley and South Ribble hospital, which my right hon. Friend visited recently, goes down extremely well, is extremely popular and is further evidence of the amount of money that the Government are putting into the health service locally as well as in London?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to mention the health service's investment programme. The hospital that we visited in his constituency is a result of, first, the Government's commitment to investing in the development of the NHS and, secondly, the commitment through effective management to ensure that those resources are used to deliver a high-quality service throughout the country.

Mr. Milburn: While the Secretary of State talks about a 5 per cent. cut in management costs, is not the reality that spending on managers has rocketed by 300 per cent. since the Government's changes to the health service? Is it not the case that millions of pounds of precious public resources continue to be lost from front-line patient services simply to finance the administration of that


internal health market? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how more managers but fewer nurses add up to a national health service in which the patient comes first?

Mr. Dorrell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his responsibilities. When he has had a little more time to think about them, perhaps he would like to tell the House which of the policies espoused by the predecessor of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) he disagrees with. Does he disagree with her acceptance of the fact that the traditional health service was under-managed, in which case he supports the investment in management in the health service, or does he disagree with the stance that she took to oppose the abolition of regional health authorities? How does it help management and administrative efficiency in the health service to insist on maintaining an outdated regional health authority structure?

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that managers are the latest scapegoat for the Opposition—managers who have worked hard to bring down waiting lists to the lowest level since records began and many of whom are regraded nurses? The Opposition's proposals would bring in more bureaucracy but, worst of all, political placemen.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is almost right, but not quite. He is wrong in his suggestion that the Opposition would change anything substantial in terms of the administrative costs of the health service. Actually, they have opposed the changes that we introduced, the effect of which is to reduce the administrative burden on the health service.

NHS Dental Practices

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dental practices are no longer accepting new NHS patients. [38215]

Mr. Malone: As dentists are independent practitioners, information in this form is not available centrally. However, at June 1995, there were 15,616 dentists in England providing general dental services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that that is 190 more than three years ago.

Mr. Pike: Whatever the Minister says, does he not recognise that it is increasingly impossible for people to get national health service dental treatment? Does he not accept that the Government are presiding over the destruction of the NHS dental service and that they need to do something about it now?

Mr. Malone: What the hon. Gentleman says is a lot of nonsense. In his own constituency, for example, there are nine dentists in four practices, who all accept NHS patients. In the adjacent village of Padiham, a further five dentists are accepting new patients. National health service dentistry is alive and well and growing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That is happening in the majority of places throughout the country, although in a number of isolated and difficult areas, we are seeking to encourage family health services authorities to employ salaried dentists to deal with local problems.

Mr. Nicholls: Would my hon. Friend like to remind the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that there is an

overriding obligation on the national health service to provide dental services, and that if those services are not provided by local dentists because they want to operate a cartel, salaried dentists are employed by the national health service to plug the gap? I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for ensuring that those services are provided in Teignmouth in my constituency, and I hope that I shall not have to write to him about Newton Abbott in due course.

Mr. Malone: I thank my hon. Friend. In his constituency, there is a good example of how a shortage that manifests itself locally can be tackled through the salaried dental service by the family health services authority, with determined results. I was delighted to find that there is now a mobile service at Teignmouth hospital, which has been secured for the future.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister apologise to the House for the fact that nearly 1 million people have been taken off NHS dentist lists in the past three years? That is an attrition rate of 6,000 a week. Does he accept that that is a scandal and tragedy for those who want access to NHS dental care? Of course, he could give an undertaking to the House today that he will once and for all put patient access and preventive health care above the dogmatic pursuit of privatisation.

Mr. Malone: As we are having a lot of welcoming of hon. Members to their portfolios, I extend a warm welcome to the hon. Gentleman to his portfolio and to the Dispatch Box. If he is going to ask me in future about deregistration of people in NHS dentistry, it would be helpful to the House if he understood, and pointed out, that registrations take place at the same time. The figure for those registered between 1992, when the deregistration campaign started, and now stands at some 27.3 million. In fact, when it comes to child registrations, the figure has gone up.
On the second point, of course oral health is an important strategy. It is widely recognised throughout the country and by dental practitioners in particular that our oral health strategy has been a success, and dentists are happy to work with the Government in taking it forward.

GP Fundholding Practices (Suffolk)

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners in Suffolk are in fundholding practices. [38216]

Mr. Malone: About 30 per cent. of general practitioners in Suffolk are fundholders serving 34 per cent. of the population. A further 4 per cent. of GPs serving a further 4 per cent. of the population are preparing to join the scheme from next April.

Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of the increase in services to patients from GP fundholders in Suffolk, including the provision of surgery-based physiotherapy, new equipment for electrocardiograms and to test for glaucoma as well as additional support for community nursing services? Does my hon. Friend agree that this attests to the tremendous success of GP fundholding not only in Suffolk but right across the country?

Mr. Malone: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that GP fundholding introduces a tremendous new range of services for patients at local level. I have visited


fundholding practices in East Anglia and would add to what my hon. Friend said by pointing out that many out-patient services are now provided in the context of a primary care setting, which is extremely important in rural constituencies.

Children's Homes

Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the quality of care provided by small unregistered children's homes. [38217]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Responsibility for the care of children rests with the placing local authority.

Ms Coffey: As the Minister will be aware, the recent study by the social services inspectorate showed that a high proportion of private, small, unregisterable children's homes did not meet acceptable standards. The Minister has the power to legislate to ensure that those homes are properly inspected and registered, as happens with all other children's homes. Why will he not do so when his own inspectors have told him that children are at risk in those homes?

Mr. Bowis: As the hon. Lady knows from our persistent duet across the House on the subject, this is a matter that our overall review of inspection will be considering. In the meantime, she is quite wrong to suggest that the social services inspectorate report did anything other than highlight some good practice among small children's homes as well as some poor practice. It also highlighted that the failure was of local authorities to use their powers under the placement of children regulations—regulations designed to protect children wherever they may be placed.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department will keep constant vigilance over local authority social services, reminding them of their statutory duty to carry out rigorous inspections of children's homes?

Mr. Bowis: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Sadly, we have recently seen the results of occasions on which such duties have not been carried out properly. There is a duty on local authorities to inspect and visit children's homes, and a responsibility on elected councillors to ensure that that happens. Everyone associated with a child in the care of any local authority anywhere has a responsibility to ensure that the child is safe and protected and that, if the child needs help, help is brought to him or her.

GP Fundholding

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of general practitioner fundholding. [38218]

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioners in the United Kingdom are currently fundholders. [38220]

Mr. Dorrell: General practitioner fundholding is central to our plans for the future of the national health service. We expect more than half the GPs in the country

to be fundholders from next April and I recently announced a further extension of the total purchasing pilots.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Can the Secretary of State explain why my constituents who are waiting for certain treatment at Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, are asked whether they are the patients of fundholding or non-fundholding GPs? Why does it appear that fundholding patients are able to get certain treatments, which are being denied to patients of non-fundholding GPs? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the Labour party is committed to ensuring that patients are treated on the basis of clinical priority and, as a consequence, will get rid of fundholding once and for all?

Mr. Dorrell: As we are in the business of welcoming hon. Members to different parts of the House, I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to a position on the Opposition Back Benches—one of his own choice. It no doubt allows him to tease out some of the differences about fundholding among those on the Opposition Front Bench, which he previously had to obscure from the world.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I welcome the fact that those on the Opposition Front Bench are committed to ensuring that care in the national health service is available on the basis of clinical need. He will have seen that precisely that commitment is given by the Government Front Bench. In terms of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, that commitment was given to the hon. Gentleman by both Wakefield health care trust and the Wakefield fundholders in exercising choice in the use of their funds.

Mr. Hanson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the two-tier system—the inefficient, bureaucratic system referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—also costs an additional £200 million in bureaucracy? Will he welcome the Labour party's commitment to abolish fundholding and put that money back where it belongs, into patient care?

Mr. Dorrell: I shall certainly make no commitment to abolish fundholding because to do so would put back the cause of patient care. The evidence is clear. The Opposition keep calling for extra research because they do not like the results of the research that has already been carried out. It shows clearly that, for a small increase in transaction costs, we deliver substantial savings and improved patient care. That is the result not of the Government's assessment but of repeated independent assessments of the effect of fundholding.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the majority of fundholders in my constituency provide a better service for their patients. However, will he now look at a problem that has arisen and advise my national health service trust? Where that trust literally runs out of money, it is beyond doubt and political banter that patients suffer because non-fundholders cannot have equal access to the national health service trust.

Mr. Dorrell: With respect, my hon. Friend must face the fact that the resources available to treat patients, whether of fundholding practices or not, are exactly the same. The assurance given to patients of fundholding GPs, by both trusts and GPs, fundholding and non-fundholding alike, is that access to urgent and


emergency care is dealt with from a single waiting list. The availability of non-urgent care within the health service reflects different purchasing decisions taken not merely by different fundholders within the health service but by different health authorities within the health service. That is part of the exercise of local choice, exercised in the interest of all patients of the NHS.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that firm evidence now suggests that devolving financial power to GPs has enabled them to deliver improved care to their patients? Does he agree that the best means of improving the position of all patients would be to extend GP fundholding to them, thereby levelling up rather than levelling down, as espoused by the Labour party?

Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's desire to take the benefits that come from fundholding and generalise them. I entirely agree that that is surely how, in practice, one continues the rate of improvement of patient care within the NHS. Those who argue that we should abandon fundholding must explain to what is now a majority of GPs in the NHS why it is in their interests and those of their patients to abandon a scheme that has been shown by repeated analysis to deliver better value care and better quality care not merely to fundholding patients but to all NHS patients.

Ms Harman: Is the Secretary of State aware of the situation in his own Minister of State's constituency? Although the patients of GP fundholding practices get their hip replacements in less than 10 months, the patients in non-fundholding GP practices have been told by the Winchester and Eastleigh Health Care trust that they will have to wait 18 months or more. What does he say to those patients who are in pain and have been told that they have got to wait more than 18 months, while other patients are treated in less than 10 months? Is that not evidence of a two-tier system and of the unfairness of Tory health reforms? Will he join me in thanking Dr. Andy Coates, all the local GPs and the local NHS hospital trust for working together to try to mitigate the unfairness of those Tory health reforms?

Mr. Dorrell: One of the things that the Labour party must get used to about its new health spokesman is that she cannot see an elephant trap without walking into it. What has happened in Winchester blows sky high her theory that fundholders do not work for the benefit of all NHS patients. The deal to which the hon. Lady referred clearly reveals that the GPs of the district, fundholders and non-fundholders, are working together to deal with a problem that has emerged in the district, and was caused by an 8 per cent. increase in accident and emergency admissions. I do not remember that the hon. Lady predicted that. What has happened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister of State is evidence that the case of the Labour party is wrong—fundholders do not desert NHS patients. All the GPs of that district have worked together to look after all the local patients, as the hon. Lady had the grace to admit in the closing sentence of her question.

Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Opposition were correct in their assumption that patients registered at fundholding practices benefit far more than other patients, surely the obvious answer is for the Opposition to see to it that that successful mode of GP practice is extended throughout the NHS?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is not only right, but echoes the views of the majority of GPs operating in

the NHS. That is why the predecessor of the hon. Member for Peckham, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), found herself faced with a rather hostile audience when she recently attended the fundholding doctors conference. She had to explain to those doctors why the Labour party is committed to abolishing a scheme that allows the majority of GPs in Britain to improve the health care available to their patients.

Drug Abuse

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals he has to reduce abuse of prescribed drugs. [38219]

Mr. Bowis: Any drug, prescribed or otherwise, can cause serious harm if misused. We will take whatever action is necessary to tackle the misuse of drugs. Recent measures have dealt with the serious problem of temazepam misuse.

Mr. Flynn: As 200 people died last year as a result of paracetamol use—twice the number of people who died as a result of heroin use—and 30,000 people were admitted to hospitals as a result of paracetamol overdoses, what is the Minister doing to unblock the ban on the sale of the safe paracetamol that includes an antidote that prevents liver damage? Is it not true that drug companies are campaigning against safe paracetamol because they know that the only way in which to market the safe product is to draw attention to the deadly peril of the existing paracetamol products?

Mr. Bowis: We will always look at the safety of medicines as the subject is brought to our attention, and there are proper procedures for considering such matters. The hon. Gentleman is trying to confuse several types of drugs that could be perfectly safe if used properly, but can be very dangerous if misused. That is why we have taken action on temazepam. I should have thought that he might start by welcoming the steps taken when a drug is perceived to be a danger to the public—the fast steps to remove the gel-filled capsules and to reschedule that drug.
Many issues surround the hon. Gentleman's messages about drugs. On the whole, his message that cannabis, for example, is something to be taken without hesitation is something that the House would reject.

Mr. Fabricant: In that very connection, I was wondering what representations my hon. Friend has received from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), regarding cannabis, and has she said whether or not she inhales?

Mr. Bowis: I would say to my hon. Friend, to the hon. Member for Ladywood and to Opposition Front Benchers that, if they came with me and saw some of the results of cannabis use, if they came and saw children trying to find the courage to say no to drugs, if they came and saw young people struggling to get out of the black hole into which they have fallen as a result of trying drugs—and trying cannabis among them—they would know that they are not helped by the Labour party's line of "soft on drugs, soft on


criminal abuse of drugs", as expounded by the hon. Member for Ladywood in her capacity as a member of the shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Flynn: In view of the disgracefully complacent and libellous nature of the Minister's reply, I intend to raise that matter on the Adjournment.

Prescription Prices

Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the increase in real terms in the price of prescriptions since 1978; and if he will make a statement. [38221]

Mr. Dorrell: Roughly eightfold.

Ms Church: Does the Secretary of State share the anxieties of the British Medical Association and general practitioners in my constituency that, when low-income patients have been prescribed two or more items, they actually ask their GP which of the items is the most important for them to take? Does the Minister not understand that, when two items are required, a matter of £10.50, or three items, a matter of £15.75, that is not an inconsiderable chunk out of the family budget for many of my low-income constituents? Will he join Labour Members in requesting a review of the prescription system so that we have a much more equitable system for low-income families?

Mr. Dorrell: I shall take the Labour party's commitment to a review of the prescription system a great deal more seriously when Labour Members tell us what the results of that review will be. In the meantime, the hon. Lady's low-income constituents are protected by the exemptions that already exist, which cover more than 80 per cent.—more than four out of five—of all prescriptions dispensed.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that the money raised through the increase in prescription charges this year, which I believe to be £300 million, will go directly to front-line health services? That could pay for about 75,000 hip replacement operations or 235,000 cataract operations.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend expresses precisely the dilemma confronted by any of those Labour Members who may think that we could afford to do without prescription charges. Those charges are part of the financing of the health service—my hon. Friend has the right number: £300 million is raised by prescription charges and is invested in precisely the sort of patient care that he described.

Mr. Galbraith: What is the Government's position on the prescription of beta-interferon? As the Secretary of State knows, that is a drug of unproven value and its unrestricted prescription would hinder future knowledge of it. We may never find out whether it—or, indeed, any of the other available drugs—is of any value.

Mr. Dorrell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the drug has not yet been granted its market licence. We have been working closely, both with the patients' organisations and with the profession, against the possibility that the drug will receive a licence. If it receives a licence, we have agreed with them protocols

to ensure that the drug is available from those clinicians who are best qualified to make judgments about which patients are most likely to benefit from it.

Waiting Times

Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing waiting times in Somerset and the south-west. [38222]

Mr. Sackville: Excellent progress has been made in reducing waiting times in Somerset and the south-west generally. At 31 March 1995, there was no one waiting more than 12 months for non-urgent treatment in Somerset and only 66 patients waiting that long for treatment in the south and west region.

Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Will he confirm that average waiting times have come down? Does that not give the lie to the Labour party's opposition to the creation of hospital trusts and its current desire to abolish fundholding? In fact, Conservative reforms are working.

Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that not only have the numbers of those waiting come down but the time that they wait—the important figure—has also come down. In his district, the figure for those waiting more than six months for non-emergency treatment has come down by a full 40 per cent. I would certainly say that his constituents enjoy a high-quality health service that is matched only by the quality of their parliamentary representation. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It is far too noisy: I can hear neither questions nor answers.

Hospices

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the funding of hospices. [38225]

Mr. Bowis: Our commitment to hospices and specialist palliative care services has been demonstrated by a sixfold increase in funding—from £8 million in 1990–91 to nearly £48 million in 1994–95. From 1994–95, that funding has been built into health authorities' general allocations.

Mr. Hutton: Is the Minister aware of the increasing financial pressure under which many hospices are operating? That is partly as a result of the fall in voluntary giving due to the national lottery. Will he take action to relieve that financial pressure by restoring the ring-fencing of hospice funding and ensuring that the 50:50 joint funding guidelines issued to health authorities are honoured?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman refers to an overall target of 50:50 funding nationally. The change in the formula will enable local authorities to be more flexible in their approach. I think that he would join me in congratulating the voluntary effort that goes into financing and resourcing the hospice movement, both in his St. Mary's hospice, Ulverston—a subject which he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) have raised with me—and in Trinity hospice in south London in my constituency. It is


the combination of voluntary effort and the health service that enables those excellent facilities to continue. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I can hear individual private conversations. I want to hear questions and answers.

Mrs. Peacock: May I ask my hon. Friend to look again at the possibility of departmental funding for children's hospices, such as Martin house in Yorkshire, as that funding would assist them in their excellent work?

Mr. Bowis: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in supporting children's hospices and children's palliative and long-term and life-threatening illness care. I am sure that she is aware of our £5 million programme of support for children's hospices, which I am certain will help the movement to expand in that respect.

Prescription and Patient Charges

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make an announcement about increases in prescription and other patient charges.[38227]

Mr. Malone: An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister agree that it would be a charge 9n other patients if the North and South Birmingham health authorities were to agree to make public funds available to general practitioner fundholders to buy appointments in nine weeks and operations within six months while other patients must wait a minimum of 13 weeks and nine months for their treatments? Is that not evidence of a two-tier health service?

Mr. Malone: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that targets for waiting lists are being met. Waiting lists are coming down, to the benefit of many people. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the agreement that was reached with the professions in introducing health service reforms which ensure that everyone receives the same quality of care. The majority of people are admitted at once as emergencies, and clinical need determines when people will be treated. I am astonished that Labour Members are carping on when waiting lists are coming down and more people are being treated more quickly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38241]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Winnick: Why did the Prime Minister in his meeting with the French President not condemn French nuclear tests, which have deeply offended British and international opinion? Did the Prime Minister not take such action because the British Government have connived with

the French in a dirty deal whereby information arising from the nuclear tests will be passed on to this country? If that is the case, it shows the dishonesty of the Government.

The Prime Minister: It is not the case. As I have said before, no information from the French nuclear tests will be passed to us—indeed, given the nature of our weapons, it would not be of use to us. There is no deal; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and withdraw his allegation.
At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his views. He has been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he is, and he saluted the courage and determination of anti-nuclear demonstrators at Greenham Common. [Interruption.] I trail my coat to find out where Labour Members' hearts are, and now we know.

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38242]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement that one of London's most popular grant-maintained schools, the Oratory school, will be able to build a choir school, thanks to its self-governing status in the public sector? While that may be music to the ears of the parents with children at the school, how does my right hon. Friend think that the rest of the Labour Front Benchers will react?

The Prime Minister: Of course I welcome that news. Grant-maintained schools have a greater freedom to develop their strengths because power is put where it should belong: with the school head, the school governors and the parents who know best what is in their children's interests.

Mr. Blair: Is it—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Stop this barracking—particularly from Ministers.

Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that what the chairman of the rail users' watchdog as well as the Transport Select Committee have said is true: that, as a result of privatisation, an extra £700 million of taxpayers' money will be paid to the subsidised, privatised railways?

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that over the years we have increased resources to the nationalised British rail industry. Contrary to what has been said by some people, the Government have supported record levels of investment. We made it clear when we decided to proceed with privatisation that we would support lines that were socially necessary—partly at the request of Her Majesty's Opposition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe now that we should not do that.

Mr. Blair: Is it not right that the Select Committee attributed the extra £700 million to privatisation, not to paying for socially useful routes, and that hundreds of millions of pounds of City fees are involved? Is it not also true that investment in the railways today is half what it was two years ago and that, as a result of privatisation, 5,000 manufacturing industry jobs have been lost and the unified railway network has been broken up into 70, 80 or 90 companies?
When will the Prime Minister, just for once, stop pandering to the right wing of the Conservative party? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may want rail privatisation: the British people do not. When will the right hon. Gentleman stop pandering to the right wing of his party and, instead, listen to and speak up for the British people, who want their railways run as a public service?

The Prime Minister: I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman would get round to his "lurch to the right" campaign, launched so inexpertly—one might almost say he made a hash of it—by the new shadow Chief Whip.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the policies we are following, of bringing choice to parents and opportunity to children, are a lurch to the right, the country will not agree. If he thinks that spending more on patients' health is a lurch to the right, the people will not agree. If he thinks that dealing with asylum abuses, or standing up for Britain in Europe, represent a lurch to the right, he is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the centre right of politics is our ground and there is no way a squatter like him can rest on it. He may regard himself as the Trojan horse of socialism, but he will find that it is our land on which he is parking and there is no room for him on it.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's specific point, and pushing aside the points on which he was inaccurate, I would tell him that there have been record amounts of investment in recent years—£1.5 billion in 1992–93, which was the highest for 30 years. Investment is still running at more than £1 billion in the current year, and every privatisation that we have introduced has provided better service.
I see the new shadow Chief Whip in his place. It was he who once referred to the privatisation of British Airways as the pantomime horse of capitalism. It is now the most successful privatised air service in the world.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that positive discrimination in favour of women is both unnecessary and patronising? Will he comment on the policy of the Labour party, which has imposed by diktat from Walworth road—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the attitude of the Labour party. I am sure that he has caught the first part of the hon. Lady's question and is perfectly capable of answering it.

Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will never impose women-only shortlists, as has been done by diktat of Walworth road in six constituencies in the north-west of England?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that I believe that we should seek equality of opportunities for everyone, for women in the House of Commons and elsewhere. It is certainly our policy to do so. My hon. Friends needed no special discrimination to get here. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I can promise her—not only in this but in other matters—that we will not follow the policies of the Opposition, because, apart from anything else, daily they seem to be following our policies.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister consider these three dates? On 11 July, Srebrenica fell and 8,000 young men were taken away and massacred. On 31 May, I asked the then Secretary of State for Defence, in the House, to assure me that the policy on the defence of Srebrenica had

not changed, and he gave me that assurance. It is now revealed, or claimed, that on 24 May, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the British Government, the UN decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate. Is that correct?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, just occasionally, might do the British forces and the British Government the credit of acknowledging what they have done. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is not correct. He has been wrong throughout the whole of this episode time after time. He has denigrated what the British Government have done and what the British armed forces have done. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman this: there are hundreds of thousands of people alive today in Bosnia because of what was done by the British Government and the British armed forces.

Mr. Elletson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a successful conference this year in my constituency? Is he aware that next year the Labour party will be in Blackpool? Will he take this opportunity to reassure parents and police in my constituency that under a Conservative Government cannabis cigarettes will never be for sale?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and I will tell the House why very clearly. The vast majority of people—between 80 and 90 per cent.—who move on to hard drugs graduate to hard drugs having first experimented with soft drugs. Any sensible person realises the danger of doing that and realises that any responsible person in public life would discourage the use of soft drugs because of the danger of moving to hard drugs. I am sorry that some Opposition Members with some responsibility in public life should choose to take a different view.

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38243]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dowd: Given the Government's latest response to the recommendations of the Nolan committee, when will the Prime Minister stop his feeble backtracking on his alleged intention to improve the standards of conduct of Ministers and stop trying to defend the snout in the trough behaviour of so many on the Benches behind him?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows—or should know, if he took an interest in our matters—that the Nolan report is at present being considered by the Select Committee. It will very shortly be brought before the House, when we will have the benefit of the deliberations of the Select Committee and when the House can then vote on all the recommendations that emanate from it.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38245]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter—the characteristically pompous letter—from the leader of the Liberal party, inviting Conservative Members of Parliament to back his party on education? Does my right


hon. Friend agree that the best response to that has come from a Harrow Liberal councillor, Bernadette Murphy, who says that the arguments for the Conservative education system are unanswerable and that every party should understand that? Will he congratulate her on reinforcing her message by resigning from the council and causing a by-election and giving such a clear steer as to how people should vote in that by-election?

The Prime Minister: I did see the letter from the right hon. Gentleman, which he displayed so widely among my colleagues. I recall that the letter also said:
This is the moment to stand up for what is right and to put Britain first.
Clearly, Miss Murphy did.

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38246]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that Britain requires a job skills

audit? We have fallen from 21st to 24th in the league, according to the World Economic Forum's report on skill shortages. Is that because the Government do not invest in education and training? Is it not about time that the Government recognised that education and training are vital to our economy?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated a skill shortage in answering questions. [Laughter.] It is clear—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: It is clear that Opposition Members' new standards of behaviour are only for certain occasions.
Of course my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is right to examine the level of skills. He has done that to enable us to ensure that we can build on what has already been done to improve skills in the country. That is the purpose of the changes that have been made. That is the purpose of the training and enterprise councils; that is the purpose of investment. It is because of the increasing skills and increasing investment that our exports—not least in manufacturing—are performing better today than they have for many years.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are a defender of the liberty of individual Members of Parliament, and I also agree with your advice that hon. Members on both sides of the House should show each other more courtesy. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that during the recent by-election certain representatives of the Labour party were very beastly to the—

Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? I am not involved in by-elections; I need to know the Standing Order and the procedure with which the hon. Gentleman wishes me to deal.

Mr. Fabricant: The point of order, Madam Speaker, is that people have been very beastly to the Liberal Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), and have been questioning his recommendations that people should use cannabis and that it should be legalised. Is that not very unfair, as the Opposition Front Bench is now making the same recommendations?

Madam Speaker: That is a total abuse of the House's time. I shall take no similar points of order; points of order must relate to questions with which I can deal, as Speaker of the House.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House may be aware by now that, after what has been internationally condemned as a show trial, Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa, the international environmentalist and social campaigner, has today been sentenced to death with no right of appeal. That is a matter of great concern. Has there been any indication, Madam Speaker, that a British Minister may respond, bring pressure to save the lives of Mr. Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues and make a statement in the House?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Minister that he or she is prepared to make a statement today.

Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate a ruling on what is said in "Erskine May" about the abuse of Prime Minister's Question Time. Page 287 clearly states:
Questions which seek an expression of an opinion, or which contain arguments, expressions of opinion, inferences or imputations, unnecessary epithets, or rhetorical, controversial, ironical or offensive expressions, are not in order.
In recent weeks, Conservative Members have asked an increasing number of questions that should really be addressed to the Leader of the Opposition. Many of my hon. Friends would approve of the idea of a Leader of the Opposition's Question Time, but we do not have one. Prime Minister's Question Time should be precisely that, but the Prime Minister is increasingly dodging legitimate questions by employing dubious devices originating from the Whips Office to ensure that questions are addressed to the Leader of the Opposition which only the Prime Minister can answer.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that today I cautioned a Conservative Member that questions put to the Prime Minister must not relate to the Opposition. All Ministers are responsible to the House

for the workings of the Government and Departments, not for the attitude of the Opposition or any of the minority parties. I hope that my words will be noted by all concerned and that, in future, questions will be put to Ministers on matters for which they have responsibility and accountability to the House.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A Member of the House receives £5,500 from ASLEF in sponsorship and has booked a room in the Parliamentary Estate on Thursday to meet a number of my constituents in connection with the £5,500 that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) receives. Is that not corrupt use of House of Commons facilities and should not it be stopped because it is a Labour party meeting for the benefit of the ASLEF sponsorship that the Member receives?

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I think what the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise is further to the point of order. Serious allegations have been made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I ask him to put them in writing to me so that I may respond properly because I am not quite clear about what he is insinuating. Such points of order must be put in writing so that the allegations are clear.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not true.

Madam Speaker: Order. It may or may not be true. I wish to see the evidence supporting the allegations so that I may deal with them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any representations from the Deputy Prime Minister who has now been geared up with a £150,000 machine with which he is wired up to every Cabinet Minister? Has there been any request for him to answer questions for every Minister? He has a spy in a cabin over there and the taxpayers are having to foot the bill for £150,000 desk diary. In Derbyshire, that would buy a desk, a diary, a roof to put over people's heads, five rooms which could be stuffed full of furniture and a Rover Sterling car to put in the garage. It is an abuse of taxpayers' money and it ought to be condemned by all of us.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and, I hope, all hon. Members are aware, this matter will appear in the estimates. When they are debated, no doubt Members will notice it. In the meantime, there may be opportunities for an Adjournment debate on the matter. The estimates will come before the House for debate.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any request from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement in the House on the alteration of her policy, which clearly shows that the Labour party is now soft on the greatest cause of crime? Have you received any such request to show that the Leader of the Opposition proposes to dispense with that shadow Secretary of State


following his demotion of her predecessor? To lose one shadow Secretary of State may be a misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness.

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a totally disgraceful abuse of the House's time. I will not take the trouble to respond to questions such as that which do not come near a point of order.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have observed from the remaining Orders of the Day that there are no fewer than five pages of closely printed amendments to Standing Orders, most of them amending matters that are not contentious, such as Wednesday morning sittings and those which save the time of the House. However, you will recall that, when these matters were debated a year ago, there were three or four Divisions on matters of principle because some hon. Members believed that even the experimental orders permanently removed the powers of private Members as against the Government. In addition, the one that slipped through was for the removal of the opportunity for private Members' ballot motions to be debated in the House, and I understand that that is something of an historic privilege.
I have given notice to the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House suggesting that, due to the importance of those amendments, which are to be permanent, the time given on Thursday, prior to an important debate that the whole country wants to watch and know about, will be inadequate for a proper consideration of the amendments, that we should take the precedent of a Bill and have at least a weekend before we can debate them, and that we should therefore debate them early next Session, rather than in a hurried and controversial manner on Thursday.

Madam Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and that he has given notice to the Leader of the House on this matter. If he wishes, however, to alter our practice concerning the period of notice before motions are debated, I suggest that he asks the Procedure Committee to consider the matter. As to the timing of the debate on the motions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, may I remind him that, on Friday last and without objection, the House ordered that all necessary questions to dispose of procedures on the motions should be put after two hours' debate on Thursday 2 November.

Mr. Charles Hendry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. After all the attention over the summer given to the spread of the Internet, have you had any requests to install in the Chamber computers linked to the Internet, not least to ensure that Opposition spokesmen know the line from their party leader and the spin doctors, rather than being encouraged to speak their own minds?

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you establish whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) gave notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that he intended to raise in this House an issue that he knew not to be true?

Madam Speaker: I take it that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) did give notice, as is usual in the House, but he is here and can now speak for himself.

Mr. David Shaw: The facts with that information came through immediately before I came into the House. May I point out to Opposition Members that the hon. Member—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I take it from that that no notice was given.

Mr. Shaw: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman conform with the courtesies of the House is all I am asking.

Mr. Shaw: On that point of order, Madam Speaker, you will recall that I wrote to you to make the point that that particular hon. Member did not inform me before visiting my constituency.

Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Thursday, Monday and Tuesday, we will debate the important questions relating to Nolan. Before each of those three debates, will it be in order for you to say to all Members that they should declare what consultancies and directorships they have and, in particular, what moneys they earn from outside businesses?

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present in the House yesterday. [Interruption.] Is he listening—he has just put a point of order to me. Perhaps he was not present in the House yesterday when I made it clear that, in any debates of that nature, I expect all hon. Members—that is, Members on both sides of the House—to declare any pecuniary interests.

Mr. Jim Dowd: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you clarify then and say that hon. Members must name each specific interest that they have, rather than—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am going no further. Hon. Members know precisely what is expected of them when they declare an interest.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has become abundantly apparent in recent months that points of order are used to name hon. Members in a way which, if broadcast outside and found not to be true, would give rise to substantial libel damages. The courtesies of the House also require that, in every case, notice is given to an hon. Member who another Member proposes to name. Clearly, that has not been done in many cases. Might not this be an opportunity for you to reconsider the rules of the House and to make giving notice mandatory?

Madam Speaker: We have a great many privileges in the House. What disturbs me enormously is that responsibility is not matched with the privileges that we have. Members of Parliament choose special times of the day and special days of the week in which what they say across the Floor of the House will be highlighted by the media. I deprecate very much many of the exchanges that are not at all genuine points of order which take place across the Floor of the House to attempt to seek publicity. I hope that Members will reflect on what I have said, and in future will put to me only real points of order that deal with our Standing Orders, proceedings and other matters with which the Speaker of this House can properly deal.

Water (Conservation and Miscellaneous Provisions)

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the conservation of water by the establishment of mandatory water leakage targets for water undertakers and by encouraging the installation of water efficient fittings in homes; to provide for the review of abstraction licences which affect sites of nature conservation value; to give domestic consumers greater choice as to methods of charging for the supply of water; and to provide for the payment of compensation in relation to drought orders.
I am grateful for the chance to introduce the Bill, which, although a small Bill, is made significant by the failure of the water industry to cope with this year's hot dry summer. Its object is to place conservation at the heart of water management, in a way that both protects wildlife and ensures constant supplies to meet all our needs in homes and industry without the use of crude price rationing for the poor and more vulnerable.
Behind that objective lies the fact that, whatever the industry's management structure, water belongs to us all, and is in true common ownership. To squander that precious resource affects not only us but every plant, bird and animal.
The Bill seeks to achieve that objective in four ways, the first of which concerns leakage. Public anger spilled over this summer as company after company sought drought orders, hosepipe bans and, in the Yorkshire area, stand-pipes and cut-offs. That anger was fuelled by the growing awareness that because of leaking pipes, half a million gallons of treated drinking water is wasted every minute of every day—enough to serve the daily needs of an extra 26 million households.
Labour's campaign to highlight that scandal has now been backed by the National Rivers Authority report, "The Drought of '95", published last month, which said:
Leakage is an area where in knowledge, the UK is without doubt a world leader, but in practice has some of the highest leakage rates in the world".
My Bill calls for mandatory targets to be set, monitored and enforced by the Government through the Environment Agency, in close consultation with the companies and the water regulator. The power to penalise companies for failure would rest with the new agency rather than with Ofwat, whose approach to leakage has been disappointing, constrained by its limited focus on economic factors rather than the wider conservation picture.
Two weeks ago, in a letter to the Secretary of State, the Water Services Association promised an enhanced programme of leakage reduction at no extra cost to customers. That is most welcome, and recognises for the first time that leakage reduction is the prime factor in water conservation. My Bill will ensure that those fine words are followed by effective action and investment.
Secondly, my Bill examines how homes could be designed to conserve water without changing usage patterns involving hygiene and our basic needs. Plentiful use of clean water remains the foundation for a high level of public health. The Bill seeks to minimise people's need for water by promoting water-efficient fittings in the home, rather than by using blunt economic tools simply to drive down demand.
For example, a programme to replace all the nation's older 9-litre toilet cisterns with new 6-litre varieties would in itself save more than 10 per cent. of present household usage. If half the baths that we take were replaced by showers—I do not advocate the Yorkshire Water chairman's advice to forgo baths and showers altogether—we should save a further 4 per cent.
Those savings are technically simple to achieve and permanent, and they would be popular because they cause no added inconvenience to customers. They are also more equitable than metering, as they are not made at the disproportionate expense of poorer customers, and are cheaper than the £200 per property cost of metering, especially as there are no continuing billing costs.
My Bill uses the new duty inserted into the Water Industry Act 1991 by the Environment Act 1995, adding a clause requiring water undertakers to devise grant schemes to help with the cost of installing the efficiency measures.
Customers who respond to the call for greater water efficiency would then be rewarded by a reduction in their bills to reflect their lower consumption. Companies would receive both the benefits of reduced demand, and their success or otherwise would be a recognised factor in price negotiations. The Government document "Water Conservation" endorses some of that approach, stresses the value of transferring to low-flush toilets and suggests that water byelaws and building regulations should be used to enforce the fitting of water-saving devices. We look forward to further work on this.
The Bill attempts to offer the necessary incentives to companies and customers to get some action. One response of the water companies to the summer shortage was to rush to the Secretary of State for drought orders, which would enable them to do two things—to take more supplies from the rivers and to escape liability for compensation. The Bill addresses both areas.
Section 79 of the Water Resources Act 1991 deals with the payment of compensation where a drought order has been made. There is no provision in the accompanying schedule for compensation for interruptions in supplies brought about by emergency drought orders. Moreover, interruptions in supply caused by ordinary drought orders are exempt from the provisions of the guaranteed standard scheme, unless covered in a specific contract with a particular business.
The horrendous threat of 24-hour cut-offs hangs today over the people of Halifax and Bradford in Yorkshire. The courts need to prepare for countless test cases for financial loss—or worse—in the event of a fire which might cause injury, or even death, which might have been prevented had a source of running water been available.
The action proposed in my Bill on compensation has been endorsed strongly by all the consumer bodies, and only last Friday by Ofwat's customer services committee.
But we cannot simply rob the lifeblood of fish, otters and other wildlife and drain the rivers dry in response to our failure to conserve the nation's resource. The Bill places water conservation at the heart of environment policy, where it belongs. It instructs the Environment Agency to review every abstraction licence
which may be having a significant damaging effect upon a site of nature conservation value".
Where such damaging effect is found, the Bill will seek to revoke or vary the licence accordingly.
Many hon. Members will remember that half an hour before the end of the debate on Report of the Environment Act 1995—at 11.55 pm precisely—and after 75 hours of debate in Committee, the Government tabled a new clause about water conservation. There was no time for a considered amendment and no time for a proper debate. The Bill seeks to put that right, and it has the support of all the officers of the all-party parliamentary group on water and many outside organisations. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Paul Tyler, Ms Joan Ruddock, Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. David Nicholson, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Jamieson, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Max Madden.

WATER (CONSERVATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Mrs. Helen Jackson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the conservation of water by the establishment of mandatory water leakage targets for water undertakers and by encouraging the installation of water efficient fittings in homes; to provide for the review of abstraction licences which affect sites of nature conservation value; to give domestic consumers greater choice as to methods of charging for the supply of water; and to provide for the payment of compensation in relation to drought orders: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 November, and to be printed. [Bill 185]

Disability Discrimination Bill (Ways and Means)

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Disability Discrimination Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of any fees received by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund.
This resolution covers amendment No. 62, which relates to fees charged as part of the procedure for ensuring that public service vehicles are accessible to people with disabilities. The Bill provides for two means by which manufacturers may have their vehicles certified as accessible. The first approach, and one that we expect to be used most often, provides for individual vehicles to be certified as meeting accessibility requirements. That is closely modelled on the existing procedures for ensuring that buses and coaches meet the necessary safety and environmental standards—the certificate of initial fitness procedure.
The second approach, which will be available to manufacturers producing vehicles in larger volume, is a system under which a type vehicle is approved and manufacturers may then produce subsequent vehicles without individual inspection, so long as there are satisfactory arrangements to ensure conformity of production. That too mirrors existing arrangements for the type approval of buses and coaches. There is also a system of review and appeal when a manufacturer is aggrieved at the decision of a vehicle examiner not to issue a certificate.
The new clause, amendment No. 62, simply provides for fees to be levied to cover the Government's costs relating to the approval and certification procedure. That approach is well precedented in existing vehicle construction legislation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister has set the scene for the Government's U-turns and climb downs on so many issues on disability, which we will be debating this afternoon. In that spirit, I welcome what he had to say at the eleventh hour, and invite the House to agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Disability Discrimination Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of any fees received by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund.

Orders of the Day — Disability Discrimination Bill

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

Ordered,
That the Lords amendments be considered in the following order: Amendments Nos. 1 to 29, Amendments Nos. 31 to 170 and Amendment No. 30.—[Mr. Burt.]

New clause

Past Disabilities

Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 1, to insert the following new clause—
(".—(1) The provisions of this Part and Parts II and III apply in relation to a person who has had a disability as they apply in relation to a person who has that disability.
(2) Those provisions are subject to the modifications made by Schedule (Past disabilities).
(3) Any regulations or order made under this Act may include provision with respect to persons who have had a disability.
(4) In any proceedings under Part II or Part III of this Act, the question whether a person had a disability at a particular time ("the relevant time") shall be determined, for the purposes of this section, as if the provisions of, or made under, this Act in force when the act complained of was done had been in force at the relevant time.
(5) The relevant time may be a time before the passing of this Act.")

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 67 to 70, 72, 74, 77, 79, 91, 97, 98, 113 to 123, 129 and 130.

Mr. Burt: This group of amendments relates primarily to part I of the Bill. The main changes involve extending the Bill's protection to cover people who have had a disability; putting human immune deficiency virus on the face of the Bill as an example of a progressive condition; introducing an additional power to make regulations stipulating effects on normal day-to-day activities which are to be treated as being, or, as the case may be, not being, substantial effects; and making the clause 2 guidance subject to the negative procedure. The remaining amendments are of a minor nature and are largely for clarification.
I shall speak to a couple of the more substantial amendments in the group, which will extend the provisions of the Bill to people with a past disability and honour a commitment made on Report on 22 May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who was then Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He said that the Government accepted that the Bill should confer protection against discrimination on people who have had a disability that meets the Bill's definition.
Hon. Members will recall that the Bill did not initially protect people against discrimination related to a disability from which they had recovered to the extent that they no longer experienced a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
We were persuaded that people who have had a disability need the same degree of protection as will be available to disabled people. It is an important part of the recovery process to be able to participate in social activities and to engage in employment. Discrimination, which undermines recovery by blocking access to employment or services, would be particularly damaging.
Amendment No. 121 places on the face of the Bill
infection by the human immunodeficiency virus
as an example of a progressive condition. It has always been our policy that people who have such a condition will be protected by the Bill from the moment that it leads to an impairment that has any effect on that person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, whether or not the effect is substantial. The examples included no viral conditions and the amendment has helped to correct that omission.
We have made it clear before that people with HIV will be covered by the Bill only if they meet all the requirements of schedule 1(7), that is, not until the first effect on normal day-to-day activities manifests itself. As the great majority of people with HIV infection are symptom-free, they would not be covered. HIV is a progressive condition and Lords amendment No. 121 gives it as a fourth example of such a condition.

Sir Michael Neubert: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the innovation embodied in Lords amendment No. 121 at a time when concern has been expressed in connection with another Bill. Could he estimate what the cost to the state will be as a result of the change?

Mr. Burt: The number of people expected to be brought under the Bill is negligible because the Bill, in its original form, was intended to cover people with progressive conditions anyway. The inclusion of HIV in the Bill has not changed the Bill's intentions towards progressive conditions or towards people who may have had HIV in any case. It uses HIV as an example of a viral condition and makes it clear that people can come under the terms of the Bill even if they have such a condition. The amendment only established that on the face of the Bill. Therefore, there is no extra cost.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman said that the cost of what is proposed is minimal. At what stage does he expect to be able to say anything about the total cost of the Bill as amended? Has he any idea of what the total cost of what the Government are proposing will be?

Mr. Burt: That is not really at issue. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the total cost of the Bill will depend, to some extent, on the speed with which regulations are brought into effect. The main difference between the Bills offered by the Government and the Opposition has been that to introduce the Bill too rapidly would increase the costs to those who are going to be expected to provide goods and services in future. Our method of introducing the Bill over a period will mean that the costs will be reasonable for industry, while still matching the aspirations of disabled people.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the Minister, who, as always, was as helpful as was possible. I mentioned the total cost of what is proposed because such great play was made about the cost of my Bill—the Civil Rights


(Disabled Persons) Bill. It was said repeatedly that that would cost £17 billion. If the Government felt able to make that costing, how long will it be before they can cost what is proposed in this much different Bill?

Mr. Burt: As I courteously said to the hon. Gentleman, the great difference between the costings—and the resistance from the Government to his Bill and to similar Bills—resulted from the fact that they lacked the flexibility of this Bill in terms of its regulation-making power to introduce matters within the remit of the Bill over a period of time. The problem with the hon. Gentleman's Bill and other Opposition Bills was that their requirement to introduce provisions at a very early stage substantially increased the costs to employers and business—by so much that it would have made life awkward.

Mr. Alan Howarth: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is simply not correct. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill envisaged that its provisions should be brought in over variable periods to be decided at the discretion of the relevant Secretary of State. There was a lot of Government propaganda that said that it all had to be done within five years at the staggering cost of £17 billion, but that was disinformation. The comparison that the Minister is seeking to make is wrong.

Mr. Burt: We have heard the arguments about the merits of the respective Bills many times. It was the considered view of Conservative Members—and this view prevailed—that the cost would be prohibitive because of the way in which the previous Bill was drawn. We do not need to go back over those arguments. We are dealing today with a series of amendments to this Bill—a Bill that will substantially advance the cause of disabled people. If we concentrate on that, the merits of the Bill, as it will be amended, will become clear.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I see much logic in the case that the Minister seeks to present on behalf of the Government, who have clearly changed their position. However, the House be unable to decide on these matters unless we know whether, by definition, those affected by the Bill accept the decision of the House of Lords on amendment No. 30. What is the Government's view on that amendment?

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman knows our view on amendment No. 30 very well. We seek to overturn that amendment, as we have made plain from the moment that it was passed in the House of Lords.
Amendment No. 116 inserts into the Bill a power to make regulations stipulating effects on normal day-to-day activities, which are to be treated as being or not being substantial adverse effects. Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill defines "disability" as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
We believe that businesses, disabled people, and courts and tribunals will, in the vast majority of cases, know who is and who is not protected by the Bill. However, experience may show that express provision is appropriate to clarify the position in relation to some conditions. This power enables that to be done without the need for further primary legislation. It complements other

regulation-making powers covering other aspects of the definition that were in the Bill when it left this House. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: This is the first of several occasions when I hope to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to welcome the Government's climbdowns during the progress of the Bill. We have witnessed a series of concessions and U-turns, and the defeat in another place on a major principle. Ministers have been forced to recognise that the Bill which left this House seven months ago was simply not adequate to tackle disability discrimination. Nowhere is that clearer than in the area covered by the Lords amendments.
We argued day after day in Committee about the definition of disability. We argued that the protection offered by the law should not be confined by medical definitions of disability. We argued that protection should be extended to those likely to suffer discrimination because of a history of or reputation for disability. We also argued for protection for those likely to suffer discrimination on the grounds of future disability, not just those with conditions such as multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy but those infected with HIV.
Ministers resisted those arguments throughout the Committee stage, and the evidence exists. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said in Committee that he did
not think that we could justify to the country including in the Bill people who were thought to have HIV".
He said that to do so would make the Bill too broad because it would include people who were not
understood to be disabled in any generally accepted sense of the term".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 February 1995; c.83.]
On protection from discrimination for those suffering from HIV, I am delighted that the Government have now given way. But notwithstanding their U-turns, we are bound to seek reassurances on the implementation of their commitment. We know from experience of the Act sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in 1970 and my Act in 1986 that Ministers cannot always be relied on to implement every aspect of existing disability legislation, so we must be sure that there is no reluctance on their part in this matter and that the law will be fully implemented to protect those to whom protection has been offered only at a relatively late stage.
We also welcome the addition of those with past disabilities, as contained in the amendments, subject to the same proviso that more needs to be said about implementation. With specific reference to the regulations and guidance, which define "substantial adverse effects", we seek Ministers' assurance that that phrase will be interpreted in a flexible way. Will Ministers assure us that the fluctuation in levels of the adverse effects suffered by many disabled people will be taken into account when the regulations are made?
Subject to those comments, we welcome the amendments. My only regret is that Ministers have not accepted that perceived disability should be considered at this stage and included in the Bill. I regret that, following my intervention, the Minister confirmed his decision.
Credit should be given where it is due. Many thousands of people will benefit from the Government's concession, made even at the eleventh hour. I congratulate all those


representatives of organisations of disabled people and others who lobbied the House on a cold, uncomfortable day. What has been achieved is their success and their victory. In that spirit, I welcome what the Minister has said.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister was not personally involved in the Committee, but he will know that we were repeatedly blocked in trying to include in the Bill what the amendments now propose. In particular, we discussed HIV at length, and of course we welcome the Government's belated conversion.
The Minister used the words "We were persuaded" to explain the Government's conversion. We accept that compliment, which justifies our stance in the debates today in supporting further changes to the Bill, as now drafted. That is not unreasonable when we recall that the Bill left the Commons in March. It was 44 pages long, but there are 47 pages of Lords amendments. They are amendments to a Bill that the Government were quite satisfied was well drafted before it left here. We hope that the few further improvements that we are seeking today will be readily granted against that background.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I should like to discuss amendment No. 121, to which the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) referred, which relates to the inclusion of progressive conditions and HIV in the Bill.
The Minister repeated the assurance given by his colleague in Committee that the Bill, as originally drafted, covered people with AIDS and symptomatic, but not asymptomatic, HIV. The recent concession by the Government is a welcome change of heart. I have always believed that it was important that the Bill should offer a clear recognition of the true medical significance of the progressive nature of HIV.
The concession will help to offset some of the hysteria that still surrounds discussion of the subject. That was evident earlier in the summer, when the press got hold of the story that the Government had agreed in another place to make the amendment. There was dreadful press coverage about that, in the Daily Mail in particular. As I recall, matters were not helped by certain Conservative Members.
It could be argued that it is of marginal importance whether something is dealt with in the Bill or in regulations, but it is not of marginal importance to those people with the HIV infection or those working with them. It is not a trivial matter. The Bill as amended still does not allow for the creation of a disability commission with teeth; instead, it relies on advisory councils. It is therefore important that as much as possible is spelt out in the Bill so that employers, providers of goods and services and those who may be discriminated against know that they are covered by its provisions.
I still believe that the Government's approach to the definition as it relates to asymptomatic HIV leaves something to be desired.
However, asymptomatic HIV is not covered by the Bill, and I continue to be unaware of any reason why the legislation will prevent employers who want to do so demanding pre-employment tests and, on the basis of those tests, discriminating against people who turn out to

be HIV-positive but do not yet show symptoms. That is a remaining loophole, which I am afraid some employers will continue to use to bar some applicants.
As survival rates increase, as the efficiency of drug regimes to help people who have HIV infections improves, I can foresee that becoming more and more of a potential problem in future as long as that loophole remains.
4.15 pm
The fundamental flaw in the Bill, even with those welcome amendments, is that it continues to rely on medical models with a medical approach to disability, defining disability purely in terms of people's physical impairments. It says nothing about attitude. It says nothing about the physical and social arrangements that discriminate against people and build barriers against them. It says nothing about perceived disability. I am glad about the change of heart on a history of disability, but those flaws remain.
I believe that the Minister used the words "any impairment". Later, when he described some of the clauses in more detail, he made it clear that we were continuing to use the definition of "substantial and adverse impairment" and effects on day-to-day activities. I should be grateful if he would say something about the way in which he envisages the regulations being framed.
Undoubtedly, some people's conditions vary from time to time. That certainly applies to the issue that I have spent most of my time talking about—people who have HIV infections, who may sometimes be perfectly well for a time but who then will be quite ill for a time. There are people with sight impairment whose conditions are not constant and vary from time to time.
It would be interesting to hear from the Minister the way in which he envisages dealing with people with problems that vary in intensity, in the regulations that will put into effect the definition of substantial and adverse effects.
I welcome the improvements in the definition, which have been dragged out of the Government during the Bill's passage. It is a pity that the Government continue to resist the civil rights based approach and insist on the approach to definition that remains in the Bill. However, it is perhaps better than when we started.

Mr. Roger Berry: In one sense, the group of amendments that we are discussing reflects the Government's whole approach to legislation.
On the one hand, there has obviously been movement. That group of amendments shows that the Government have moved significantly in relation to definition.
In Committee, we were told that it was necessary to have the narrowest possible definition, and that, if we were to include history of impairment in the category, it would open the floodgates and cause enormous problems. I am pleased to say that the Government have now recognised that they had to move to accept a broader definition of disability—just as I am delighted that the Government have moved from their position of 15 months ago, when they felt that no legislation at all was necessary on that subject.
Although movement is always welcome, the problem in relation to the definition of disability—as indeed for the legislation as a whole—is that, when the Government have moved, they have moved too little and too late.
It was always the case that, when the Government consulted on definition, their idea of definition had very little support. Several of us have referred, on occasions, to the red book—"Consultation on Government Measures to Tackle Discrimination Against Disabled People". I find that red book—the outcome of the Government's consultation exercise on the Bill—almost as interesting as the Red Book that the Chancellor places before the House every year.
One reason I find it so interesting is that it states that, of those who offered a view on the definition, only five supported the Government's original approach. The vast majority of people felt that a much broader definition was necessary. I welcome the fact that this group of amendments accepts that argument—we shall discuss amendment No. 30 later. I regret that the Government have not gone much further and taken a sensible approach.
A number of us have referred to the definition used in the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was used in the Rehabilitation Act 1973, and thus goes back 22 years in the United States. We have used that legislation to invoke the argument that we need to include those with a history of impairment as well as those perceived as having an impairment. Those two aspects are closely related, which is why I hope that I am not out of order in making my point.
The Government now accept that it should not be lawful to discriminate against someone with a history of impairment, if that is the reason for the discrimination. The Government accept that disabled people should be protected from unfair discrimination for that reason.
But let us suppose that an employer says, "This person has applied for a job with my company. This person has a history of mental illness, which is over—it is history—but that history suggests a finite probability that the illness might recur. If the illness recurs and I employ this person, I may have to make reasonable adjustments to the accommodation in order to allow him. Therefore, might it not be reasonable for me not to employ this individual?"
When we talk about a history of impairment, we are often talking about how an employer or service provider now perceives an individual. If a potential employee has a history of impairment, it affects the employer's perception of the future. Will the Minister clarify whether, when he accepts the idea that we should seek to prevent discrimination against people with a history of disability, he seeks to prevent discrimination against someone whose potential employer believes that his or her history may impose a burden on the company?
We must be clear about that. I am worried that, because the Government specifically wish to exclude the notion of discrimination on the grounds of someone's perception of a disability, they might—in the case that I have given—use that exclusion as a reason for not acting against discrimination on the grounds of history.
I hope that I have made my argument clearly. I have made my point as clearly as I can, but it is for other hon. Members to determine whether they understand it. I hope that the Minister will tackle that issue.
I welcome this group of amendments, although they have not gone far enough, which is why we shall have a debate on amendment No. 30. I want to ensure that the

Minister's interpretation of history in the context of the amendments we are discussing will not create the problem that I have identified.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I simply want to ask a question of the Minister. When he uses the term "history", does he use it to refer exclusively to an individual person, or to a family history? I should be grateful if he will advise the House on whether his policy is intended to protect those born into families with a history of disability, such as genetically transmitted diseases. Would an individual be protected against discrimination by an employer or a provider of goods and services who is aware that that person may be in the pre-symptomatic phase of a genetically transmitted disease, for example?

Mr. Burt: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Burt: I turn first to the issue of HIV. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) was correct in saying that my predecessor looked at the issue very carefully. The position in relation to asymptomatic HIV remains the same: it is too broad to include in the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the fact that the Bill now covers HIV when symptoms occur and impair.
It is quite important for the House to say that, no matter how conditions are contracted, where there is illness, disability and disease, it will act—as society would—with compassion. That strong statement must appear on the face of the Bill, and it is a central part of the argument. I think that the House would be following a very unhappy route if it were to try to distinguish how people are in certain circumstances—particularly in relation to health and illness—and to explore those circumstances in every case. We would have to open the net extremely wide, and I will have no truck with that.
The Bill recognises that all people who are affected by crippling diseases, however they have been contracted, will be treated in exactly the same way when they manifest symptoms. Everyone is in the same boat, no matter how a disease is contracted. It is important to clarify that point, and I hope that hon. Members will find it useful.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to flexibility, and I hope that I can reassure him and the House on that point. Hon. Members will be aware that the process of establishing the regulations involves extensive consultation before we issue guidance. We recognise that certain conditions fluctuate, and that substantial episodes may occur rarely, with large gaps between them. The regulations will be flexible enough to deal with the fact that substantial episodes may occur at some stage in the distant future.

Mr. Gerrard: Will the Minister clarify how the regulations will work in relation to the 12-month period that is mentioned in the Bill?

Mr. Burt: I think that there has been some confusion about the 12-month period. It does not mean that episodes must recur within 12 months; that is not the issue as far as I am concerned. The likelihood of an episode recurring, not the frequency of the recurrence, is the main factor.
A person will be regarded as disabled if it is likely that the substantial adverse effect will recur at least once after—not before—a period of 12 months from the first occurrence. If it is clear that an episode will recur, it will fall within the terms of the definition. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find the regulations flexible in that area. There has been a great deal of consultation to ensure that that is the case.
I think that I understood the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) pretty well. He seemed to be getting at exactly what we are getting at in terms of putting history on the face of the Bill. It is important that the Bill protects a person with a history of disability according to the Bill's definition, who may have recovered from that disability, but who may suffer a recurrence. From memory, I think that the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described would be covered by the Bill.
I want, if I may, to scale down the gung-ho element in this debate. The House is grown-up enough to realise that the process of legislation involves hard debate, on Second Reading and in Committee, and in the Lords. There are times when the Government have to think extremely carefully, and are moved only after the passage of time. That is not the same as a climbdown or a U-turn: it has to do with the process of debate. The Government have to listen to the arguments, here and in another place; they have to deal with lobby groups and others; and if they take some time to produce amendments, that is because it is our duty to weigh these matters carefully. That is the proper process of government.
I therefore hope that, on subsequent amendments, we will not go through this little charade of suggesting that the Government have been ground down and overturned on every point. That is not how it works.

Mr. Berry: Given the history of the fight for civil rights for disabled people, and the fact that, 15 months ago, the Government were opposed to any legislation, it would be nice if the Minister would now apologise to all the groups who were told 15 months ago that they had no right to protection of any kind.

Mr. Burt: We should also bear in mind the Government's history of passing legislation supporting disabled people, from 1979 onwards. We have a superb record, but it is rarely referred to by Opposition Members.
I said earlier that the Government had grave reservations about the costs—and everything else—involved in previous Bills on this subject. I am pleased to say that our Bill has moved the debate on. The Government are entitled to credit for that, just as all who have persuasively argued their case are entitled to credit for it.

Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Minister seems to be seeking absolution, should we agree to that until he has made a full confession? Will he answer one simple question: when tabling today's amendments, did he consult the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott)?

Mr. Burt: My right hon. Friend is and will remain a firm friend, who has done a great deal for disabled people.

I have no doubt that he would be in favour of the Bill and of all today's amendments. He remains a strong voice for disabled people in the United Kingdom.
My memory has now recovered somewhat in relation to the costs of the Bill, which temporarily slipped my mind when I was discussing the matter earlier. The original estimates of the costs of introducing this Bill are between £300 million and £1.2 billion. The range is so wide because of the timetable, but, as hon. Members will understand, this Bill costs much less than previous Bills—

Mr. Berry: rose—

Mr. Burt: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time. If I keep giving way, we will not be able to make progress.

Mr. Berry: We all want to make progress, but the Minister has just made a throwaway remark about the costs of previous Bills, clearly referring to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. May we hear again on the record that the Government's estimate of £17 billion was outrageous and wrong, and opposed by the all-party disablement group and by every organisation that looked objectively at the figures? It amounted to a smear on our Bill.
Now I am happy to make progress.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman seems to have got that off his chest. He can put it on the record if he wants to. The Government's view remains different from the hon. Gentleman's; that is why we have this Bill and not the hon. Gentleman's.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

MEANING OF "DISCRIMINATION"

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("cannot"), in line 4 and insert
("to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and (b) he")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 16, 18, 29 and 31 to 42, Lords amendment No. 43, Government amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 44, 45, 104, 106, 132 and 133.

Mr. Paice: This group of amendments deals with reasonable adjustment to the meaning of discrimination within the Bill.
Under the Bill, disabled people are protected from less favourable treatment which is for a reason relating to the disability and which is not justified. Lords amendments Nos. 4, 32 and 41 change the test of when treatment is "less favourable". As amended, the Bill will regard treatment that is for a reason relating to the disability as being less favourable if it is less favourable than the treatment of people to whom that reason does not apply. For example, where someone does not get a job for a


reason connected with his or her disability, that person is less favourably treated than the person who does get that job. The employer would then have to justify that treatment. That seems to us to be the right comparison.
The remaining amendments provide a simpler and clearer test of "justification" for less favourable treatment. The changes were made following concern raised by hon. Members as well as noble Lords in another place that the original test in the Bill placed too much weight on the opinion of employers, and it was too complex. Indeed, that concern was raised both in Committee and on Report. The use of the undefined and broad word "unsuitable" also led to adverse comments.
The amendments to the employment provisions substitute for a fixed list of specific justifications a principle that can be applied much more easily in the wide and varied range of circumstances that can arise in employment. Less favourable treatment of a disabled person would be justified only if the reason for it was material to the circumstances of the particular case and if it was substantial.
In part III of the Bill, the concept of a reasonably held opinion and a fixed list of justifications is retained, although the drafting has been much simplified, as in part II. Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 43 alters the regulation-making power that deals with the question of what is reasonable, in the context of the provisions on premises in part III, to rely on one of the justifications for less favourable treatment. The Government amendment brings the premises provision into line with those relating to service providers in amendment No. 34. We are satisfied that this different approach continues to be right and relevant in the very different context of premises. Service providers often have to take quick and, perhaps, less informed decisions when serving someone, so an opinion-based approach remains appropriate.
In the case of the clauses about employment and provision of services, the amendments also provide that a failure to comply with a duty of reasonable adjustment itself counts as discrimination, unless justified within the relevant provision.
The amendments also make it clear, in new subsection (7), that regulations made under subsection (6) for less favourable treatment may stipulate that additional cost is a valid ground for justification. They also make it clear that regulations can enable uniform rates of contribution to be maintained. I can assure hon. Members that we do not intend that a trivial degree of extra cost should amount to a justification for less favourable treatment. The nature of an assessment makes it very unlikely that the regulations will fix precise figures for the level of extra cost that would amount to justification; instead, they are more likely to set out the considerations that should be taken into account.
We are committed to consultations on the content of regulations that relate to occupational pensions and other regulations under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will expand on the provisions relating to occupational pensions when the House considers the next group of amendments. I hope that hon. Members will wait until then to raise issues on that matter.
We believe that, with these amendments, the Bill provides the right balance between ensuring that an employer can recruit the best person for the job and that

a provider of services can do so in a sensible way, and preventing unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people.
Amendment No. 8 ensures that the duty of an employer to make reasonable adjustments, where any physical feature of premises causes substantial disadvantage to a disabled person compared with those who are not disabled, refers only to an employer's own premises.
Hon. Members as well as noble Lords and employers expressed concerns that the criteria for reasonableness in making an adjustment should be more clearly established. The Government reflected on those concerns and concluded that it would be helpful to list in the Bill the key factors to which employers shall have regard when making decisions about a "reasonable adjustment". That is now done by Lords amendment No. 10.
As my noble Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment explained in another place, we believe that a number of principal factors should be taken into account in determining whether it is reasonable for an employer to take a step. The code of practice would, of course, give further examples and guidance on the question of reasonableness. As amended, the Bill would continue to reflect the Government's view that the duty on an employer to make an adjustment should provide a fair balance between what can legitimately be asked of employers, and the needs of disabled people.
Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 ensure that, should the need arise, certain adjustments can be clearly prescribed as always or never being reasonable. That can be done, when appropriate, by reference to the cost of taking the step concerned.
Section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 enshrines the principle of merit in local authorities' practice. There is an exception relating to the appointment of disabled persons. It currently refers to the quota provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, which will be repealed by the Bill. Lords amendments Nos. 132 and 133 make it clear that there is no conflict between the requirement that appointments be made on merit and the duty of reasonable adjustment in the Bill. In other words, an authority will still have to appoint on merit, but it will first have to consider whether a reasonable adjustment could help a disabled person to achieve that state of merit.

Ms Liz Lynne: Will the pilot priority interview schemes be allowed to go ahead when the amendments are passed?

Mr. Paice: The priority interview scheme is part of what is being repealed, so the answer is no; but there are a number of other ways in which local authorities, in appointing staff, will be able to take positive action to allow disabled people to demonstrate their merit.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Minister give us some examples of what the Government have in mind?

Mr. Paice: There is a range of examples. Local authorities might wish to provide preferential training schemes for disabled people, to encourage them to make the most of their abilities in their employment. They might wish to launch special recruitment drives to encourage applications from disabled people for local


authority posts. They might wish to encourage applications from disabled people for individual vacancies as they arose. They might wish to interview all suitable disabled applicants. They could do, or continue to do, all those things.
Let me remind the House of the disability symbol scheme run by the Employment Service. One of the commitments that employers must make if they are to use the symbol is to interview all applicants with a disability who meet the minimum criteria for a job vacancy, and then consider them on the basis of their abilities. The large number of local authorities that use the symbol is a clear indication of their freedom to take such action without falling foul of section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act. That is just one of the ways in which authorities are currently able to ensure that disabled people have the best possible chance of making the most of the opportunities open to them. All those opportunities will remain when the Bill is enacted.
The remaining amendments are very minor, improving and clarifying parts II and III of the Bill. I commend all the amendments to the House.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Speaking at this stage in the Bill's passage, I feel a bit of a fraud. Much of the work has already been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), and has been recognised by disabled people throughout the country.
I wish to concentrate on the powers of local authorities to take positive action to employ disabled people. During my researches this morning, I concluded that the Government had not acted with malice aforethought, but had merely been caught in their own net. Following the Minister's disgraceful speech about the positive action that can be taken, however, I feel that we must have something strong to say.
Only last week, in the other place, did it become clear that local authorities would no longer be able to take positive action. We thought that that was simply because the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires councils to appoint on merit; but councils seeking to meet the 3 per cent. quota defined in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 have had the power to take positive action. Following the Bill's removal of the quota, that will no longer be possible.
Before reaching his conclusion, did the Minister examine the hundreds of examples of local authorities throughout the country that have taken positive action to give employment to disabled people? Before my election as a Member of Parliament I was leader of a council, and remember being presented with a "fit for work" award by the Department of Employment because the council had achieved a 1 per cent. quota for disabled people. In fact, we secured that award by breaking the law: we had exceeded the requirement by two thirds. The Minister is simply enshrining the removal of the quota in law; rather than ensuring best practice, the Bill will ensure worst practice.
One of the reasons why the quota was so difficult to achieve was that the duty applied only to registered disabled people. There is a disincentive for disabled

people to register, as registration can make it more difficult for them to find employment. Many local authorities tried hard to achieve that 3 per cent. quota, but found it extremely difficult to do so because of the registration problem. They were making progress, but now some of the best practice in the country is to be stopped. The Minister shakes his head, but that will be the effect of the Bill. If local authorities can no longer take positive action, there is no doubt that the number of disabled people who are encouraged to work for authorities will fall.
Local authorities seem to be treated differently from other groups. The Bill contains an exclusion for charities, especially those dealing with disability issues in the voluntary sector, and there is evidence of similar good practice in government which local authorities should be encouraged to follow. During the recess, for example, a new Benefits Agency office was opened in my constituency by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Minister of State, Department of Social Security. Although I could not attend the opening, I visited the office a few days later, and noted that the agency was employing blind telephonists. That is an example of good practice.
In some circumstances, there will be nothing to prevent similar action in the future. Local authorities, however, should have the power to state after receiving application forms that they will guarantee an interview and that—all else being equal, and if the applicant meets the minimum or essential criteria—that applicant will be given the advantage of a job. It will seem a bit hollow for the many local authorities that now use the "positive about disabled people" symbol in their letterheads to be told by the Government to be less positive about disabled people. Some local authorities may not want to do that because it would be a backward step. I am disappointed that the Minister has taken that position and I have a few important questions for him.
Will the Minister clarify the exact powers of local authorities to operate guaranteed interview schemes? What powers will local authorities have to operate any other type of positive action to encourage disabled people to enter into their employment? How does the Minister define merit and how will disputes be settled? "Merit" cannot be scientifically defined and, of course, there could be some disputes. Will local authorities be able to earmark particular jobs for disabled people—for example, in the field of equal opportunities units? I hope that the Minister will be more positive in reply to my questions.

Ms Lynne: I was disappointed by the Minister's reply to my intervention. Local authorities that are taking positive measures should be congratulated. We must address the problem of under-representation in the work force of local authorities and what the Minister suggests will not take us far enough on that road. It is wrong that progressive local authorities such as the one in Rochdale will be blocked from taking these positive measures. Rochdale has a priority interview scheme in social services and, although we cannot totally assess it at the moment, according to the local government information unit there is benefit from it in, for instance, educating managers in how to judge a disabled candidate's ability to do a job rather than judging the perceived disadvantages, a practice that has often occurred in the past.
We have to tackle under-representation in local authorities. For decades, they have been as guilty of discrimination as other employers. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 set a target of 3 per cent., but it has been missed by a long way. Only 1 per cent. of employees of London authorities are disabled people and the average is worse for county councils. Borough and district councils are slightly better, but it is vital to allow local authorities to tackle this problem.
I should like more clarification from the Minister on what he means by positive measures and whether he thinks they will meet the target. Under the Bill, the target is to go. Will the Minister's positive measures get more disabled people into the work force of local authorities? Priority interview schemes should be allowed to continue. The Bill repeals parts of the 1944 Act and changes to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 will prevent local authorities from pursuing such schemes. The Government must give a firm commitment on what will replace them.
Some positive measures are reinforced by the Bill. Clause 10 deals with charities and supported employment being able to take positive action. Why not local authorities? They should be able to take the same action as other employers and should have the freedom to tackle the under-representation of disabled people in the work force. I should be glad to hear the Minister spell that out in more detail because I am extremely worried about it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Minister guarantee that the powers to make regulations in Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 will not be used to undermine the assistance given to disabled people under the access to work scheme? In the view of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Government are already putting undue pressure on a whole range of employers to volunteer to pay a contribution to access to work. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that any weakening of access to work would run completely contrary to the intentions set out in the Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people in employment?
I am delighted to follow in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster). He is as true a friend of disabled people as one will find anywhere in this country. He worked with disabled people before he came here and has shown constancy of the highest order in their service since the moment he arrived at Westminster. I count him among my most honoured parliamentary colleagues and wish him all success in what I am sure will be a deservedly long and distinguished Front-Bench career.
The Minister said that it was an important purpose of this part of the Bill to ensure that an employer could appoint the best person for any vacant post. Hon. Members will appreciate that, having legislated so extensively on disability over the past 25 years, I receive a national post from disabled people and their organisations. I am told by disabled people in all parts of Britain that they are refused access to jobs for which they are well qualified due to misconceptions on the part of employers.
I recall the case of a very capable woman who, in keen competition, won a senior post in a big police authority. Having taken the job, she was told that, because of a disability that in no way affected her job, she would be excluded from the superannuation scheme. That was a

most important consideration as far as she was concerned. I recall the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation contacting me about that particular case. The Minister's predecessors are aware of case after case where I have been asked to do everything possible to ensure that disabled people who have proved their fitness for jobs are not disbarred by actions taken by unreasonable employers. It is that sort of gratuitous extra handicap that so upsets disabled people. In that particular case, the woman had to decide whether to carry on in the job that she had won in open competition or to look for something else. That cannot be right. We are not absolutely certain yet that there will be fewer opportunities to exploit people in that kind of difficulty if the Bill as drafted becomes law.
I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South talked about the 3 per cent. quota. The quota has not been implemented through legal action since the 1970s. It has many critics. The fact that is very important today for disabled people is that a Bill that seeks to increase the rights of disabled people takes a right away from them that they regard as still very important. They say, "You must not do away with an existing form of protection without introducing something stronger." My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South knew, from the work that he did among disabled people before he entered Parliament, how important the 3 per cent. quota was in terms of local government employment. He mentioned it today and I hope that the Minister will respond positively on that issue.
Let no one speak in accents of serene satisfaction about what is now proposed. That is not how disabled people see what we are doing today. They want full and enforceable civil rights and they want them without any further delay.

5 pm

Mr. Connarty: When I stand to speak in the debate, I am aware that I follow people who have ploughed a deep and clear furrow in the cause of fighting for people with disabilities, but I wish to support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and to congratulate him on his first Front-Bench appointment. I look forward to seeing him on those Front Benches for many years to come.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South made the important point that some serious concerns must exist as to the purpose of the Government's removal of the 3 per cent. quota, which was not just a protection, but the only piece of positive and affirmative action contained in the law for disabled persons.
As some people have said, in many respects it had fallen into disuse. Sixteen years of recession since the Government came to power meant that many corners were cut. That is the reality at the sharp cutting edge. People had to choose between an employee who might have had to be cosseted or protected slightly more, or whose productivity was slightly less than others. In the economic environment created by the Government, employers did not choose those people where they did in the past.
It was local authorities, in the majority of cases Labour and other non-Conservative local authorities, that took seriously the 3 per cent. quota. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, the "Fit for Work" award was often given when the local authority or other


employers had not reached the 3 per cent. quota, but were seen to taking affirmative action, not just not to discriminate against disabled persons, but to discriminate in their favour.
Some people would say that the 3 per cent. quota had fallen into misuse. It was clear that employers and often local authorities, I am sorry to say, encouraged people in employment who had a minor injury or minor disability to register as a disabled person to obtain a green card for a broken limb, thumb or finger, but that was not the purpose of the original Act.
I was also a Scottish local authority leader for 10 years. We were proud to receive the "Fit for Work" award, but we did not reach the 3 per cent. target, although we tried hard to do so—not by trying to get people to register for the green card, but by seeking people who would fit that bill and then positively discriminating towards them under the 3 per cent. rule. That power has been removed by the Government in schedule 4: they are removing the positive discrimination and saying that posts must be awarded on merit.
In an intervention, I asked the Minister what the Government would do and he mentioned preferential training schemes, special recruitment drives to encourage disabled people to apply for a vacancy, and interviews of all suitable disabled people for potential vacancies. In reality, however, he is saying that those people should queue up and then be chopped down on the basis of merit.
Someone will be able to say, "I deserve that job on merit, a disabled person does not deserve it on merit, and therefore he has no complaint under the Government's Bill." That is not the spirit that, in my experience, made local authorities use the 3 per cent. quota.
I wish to give an example to the House. When I was leader of Stirling district council, we had a vacancy for someone to operate the switchboard and to work on reception. We were offered many people with minor ailments and disabilities, but the position was so accessible to someone with severe disability that we wanted the disablement officer to find us someone who had the ability but major problems of mobility. The council's attention was brought to a young woman called Jean—I shall not mention her second name, but I am sure that she would be proud to be mentioned. She has also been featured in many articles.
Jean was a seriously disabled person because thalidomide had been taken by her mother; she had foreshortened limbs. She had some trepidation about coming into a job, especially that of a receptionist working on a switchboard and facing the public, but she had a bold character. We made all the amendments necessary to give that young person access to the council.
Within a couple of years, Jean blossomed. She is still working with the local authority in reception, and in an upfront role. She takes the other receptionists to work in her disabled-amended car. She has a pilot's licence for gliding, and in the workplace has taken on board all the skills necessary. She has developed not only the personality for working in the reception and the technical skills, but everything required of her.
That was positive discrimination by the local authority, but it is clear that, under this Bill, no matter how one advertised the post, one would have great difficulty not

discriminating positively—in other words, breaking the law—to give someone such as Jean the sort of job that she requires. A local authority, public employer or a large employer deserves a "Fit for Work" award when they positively discriminate, because that is what persons with disabilities are looking for. To receive such an award, it is important that an authority or large employer should be able to hold their head up among people who suffer from severe disablement.
The Minister mentioned the word gung-ho in referring to the Opposition's pleasure at the Government's climbdown on a number of issues in the Lords. Over the past 18 months, we have recognised, from the way that persons with disabilities have come to the House and lobbied, that they have acquired a new, louder voice. Talk about gung-ho—we will see some gung-ho action on this Bill, because those people will fight for every chance to prove that they need more from the Government. They will batter down the doors of the House until they are given equal rights and a positive discrimination framework that gives them access to true employment, which they deserve and which they will undertake with honour.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Amendment No. 4 deals with the comparative for assessing whether an employer's treatment of an individual is less favourable. That is but one instance of a problem that we will have to reflect on and on which the Government owe the House some guidance this afternoon. We are dealing with an extremely complex piece of primary legislation, with further extensive and no doubt complex secondary legislation to follow.
The Government have not made it clear how an employer, a provider of goods and services or a disabled person is to understand what the nature of their obligations is. How is an employer to make his assessment of whether his treatment is, under the terms of the legislation, less favourable or not? The Minister sought to explain the Government's case on that, but did not cast all the light on it that may be needed.
The Minister with responsibility for disabled people told us in a debate the week before last that he had it in mind that there should be a fairly extensive system for provision of information and advice, but I do not think that the details have been made clear. This debate would provide an opportunity for the Government to make more clear to hon. Members and—very important—to the field that they have in mind.
Most of what we know so far is what the Government have ruled out. We know that there is not to be a disability rights commission which would have responsibilities for briefing and education, analogous to those of the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Commission for Racial Equality. We also know that the National Disability Council is not to be involved—certainly it is not to have a role in advising in particular cases and circumstances.
We have been advised that there is to be a central helpline, perhaps located in the Department of Social Security, and we have also been told that there will be some sort of second tier and network around the country whereby advice will be made available. This is an urgent and important point. In all the complexities of this legislation, we will need advice that is clear, consistent and accessible and that is provided on a cost-effective basis, in relation both to the providers and to the seekers of the advice.
It is important that whatever advice is on offer should be readily accessible. It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister told us a little more about the helpline. For example, will it be a freephone? If somebody seeking to use it is held in a queue of callers, will the courtesy of a return call be offered, or will he or she have to wait, fuming and increasingly impatient and frustrated, in the queue?
What will people find in the local telephone directory when they seek to discover how to take advantage of the service that the Government intend to make available? If they manage to get through and to consult someone, what guidance will be on offer?

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has spent a very great deal of time over recent years assisting people with special learning difficulties. He will be aware of the work of People First, and in particular of Simone Aspis of that organisation. She has asked that this debate should take account of young people with special learning difficulties, who will find it very hard to get the information they need about their rights.
She gives the example of a young person who is refused access to a social club, a youth club, because of having Down's syndrome. A person with special learning difficulties trying to find out her rights under this legislation will have no easy task. I know that my hon. Friend is as seized of the importance of that as are many others on this side of the House.

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend provides an excellent example of the need that I have sought to describe. It is a happy circumstance that the Minister present comes from the newly combined Department for Education and Employment, which has particular responsibility for young people, including those whom People First exists to represent and support. The Minister's Department has responsibility for the youth service—or what remains of it.
Certainly the needs of disabled young people, and the needs of the youth service that seeks to serve young people, represent an important example of an area in which there will be a demand for advice.
I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House what guidance he and other Ministers intend to give to Whitehall, to Government agencies, to non-departmental public bodies, to quangos and to the rest of our increasingly fragmented system of government, as well as to local authorities.
At present, there is great uncertainty. The CBI suggests that the range of services to he provided will be so extensive that it may include a mediation service. I cannot see how that could be so, but it would be encouraging if it were.
What will be the nature and extent of the advice available? Where will it come from, and what can people expect to be advised upon? Will they be told the nature of their obligations under the various elements of the legislation? Will they be given guidance, for example, on the practical meaning of "reasonableness" in a particular set of circumstances? Will they be advised as to what is "best practice", and about the developing body of case law resulting from tribunal hearings? Will they be told where to go for further advice on technical and specialised matters?
May we be told today about the funding of the system? What resources will be available for a system that must go well beyond the present PACTs—placement, assessment and counselling teams—and CEDPs—committees for the employment of disabled people? I am sure that the citizens advice bureaux will want to play what part they can in the system, and what they can do is invariably most helpful, but traditionally they have not been able to shoulder responsibilities of the sort suggested. If the Government seek to enlist them for the purpose, what will they do to help them? What resources will be provided for them?
There is already a pretty tangled and impenetrable cat's cradle of services, bodies and organisations, so it is vital that everyone concerned should know what they can expect in the way of information and advice.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), whom I warmly congratulate on his appointment to the Front Bench, said to the Minister that the Bill as amended would prevent local authorities from taking the positive action that many of them have so valuably undertaken to promote better employment opportunities for disabled people, the Minister shook his head. It is therefore important that, if he has the leave of the House to respond to the debate, the Minister makes it clear what diminution the Government intend in the scope of local authorities to support the employment of disabled people through positive action—or whether he considers that the status quo will be preserved.
5.15 pm
I put it to the Government that public authorities should set the best standards in employment, and should have every assistance and support from the Government in doing so—not only because they are major employers, but because they are public authorities, and it is right that they should set a model.
Too many public authorities do not set a good example. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has over the years tabled a series of questions and elicited much information about the disappointing performance of Whitehall Departments and other publicly funded bodies in the employment of disabled people, and the manner in which they have all too often ignored the quota by which the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 bound them.
However, many local authorities do set a high standard and provide a good model in that respect, with their positive disposition and the positive action that they have been willing to take. The Bill should at least safeguard local authorities so that they are not in a weaker position than private employers if they wish to act positively towards disabled people in their employment practices. After all, local authorities are expressive of their communities, and should take the lead within those communities in supporting those who are disadvantaged and in demonstrating best practice.
Such legislation is enormously important, not only for what it specifically provides but for its more broadly ranging declaratory effect. I mean not words without substance but legislation that articulates the values that we as a society should uphold and seek to realise in practice. Such legislation has an important educative role, and there should be nothing in it that seeks to discourage or restrain employers from best practice in the employment of disabled people.
As it is, there are too many equivocations, omissions and vaguenesses in the Bill. As has been said, it is sad that the Government are not willing to embrace the universal principle set out in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. We should not at this stage countenance any amendment of the Bill before us that would take us backwards rather than forwards towards the realisation of what should be the objective of all of us—an end to discrimination against disabled people in employment and in the provision of goods and services.

Mr. John Heppell: I shall not speak long, but I start by congratulating those who served on the Committee, who have achieved the almost impossible in turning a sow's ear into a silk purse. I say "almost impossible", because there are still omissions from the Bill that I would like to put right. One of those is the absence of a commission, because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We cannot at this stage debate omissions from the Bill. We have plenty to debate as it is.

Mr. Heppell: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was leading on towards the more relevant subject of the clauses concerned. First, I shall say something about the 3 per cent. quota that has disappeared. Like many other hon. Members, I have been a councillor, and I had the responsibility of being a chair of equal opportunities and the chair of a disability sub-committee. We were able to do things on that disability sub-committee that we could not do in committees on race or gender. I would like the same laws to apply in all areas, and I would like there to be a commission for disability, as is the case for both gender and race.
The 3 per cent. quota is not just a mechanism, and by removing it, the Minister is also removing something from councils. The quota gives a target and a perspective to councils. My council did not have its solicitors in the background on the subject of disability, saying, "We are not sure that the council has the power to do this," in the same way as it did on the subjects of race and gender, but that is what will happen in the future. We can see already that there some things that we can do in terms of positive action, but there are other things that we cannot do. I cannot seen any reason why the 3 per cent. quota could not have co-existed with the provisions of the Bill.
I wish to ask the Minister about Lords Amendment No. 31 which plans to insert the words
Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed".
Will the Minister confirm my suspicion that part III of the Bill will not apply to clubs or societies in relation to the provision of services for their members?
Does that mean that a Bill designed to outlaw discrimination will allow discrimination against people who are members of a pigeon fanciers' society? Does proper access and provision need to be made by a garden centre, but not by a gardening club? It seems to me that there is an anomaly there, and the Minister should tell the House what measures the Bill contains to take action against a service provider which limits its services to members while continuing to discriminate unfairly against people with disabilities.
Can the Minister clarify the position of business, and particularly shareholders? Will it be necessary for a company having its general meeting to make sure that the building is accessible to people with disabilities? Will the information to shareholders be sent in a form of communication that suits people—such as braille, large letters or tapes? If not, people will be discriminated against.
Will copyright matters be considered circumstances "as may be prescribed"? I understand from the Royal National Institute for the Blind that some famous authors will not allow their books to be put on tape or made into braille for blind people, thus denying blind people the right of access to those books. That is serious enough, but the fact that those books may form part of a set text for an exam that a blind person might have to take makes the matter even more serious. If that is a prescribed matter, will the Minister tell us what he proposes to do about it? Will the National Disability Council be allowed to investigate the matter further if it is prescribed?
The Bill is in many ways a milestone in terms of disability discrimination legislation, but it is not the end. There are still many things which need to be done if we are to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy the same civil rights as those of us in the Chamber. After tonight, I hope that people will not say that this is the end of the chapter and that we can now forget disabled people. There is still a long way to go to make people with disabilities free and liberated in society.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to make some brief points on this batch of amendments. The Government have again shown that they do not understand local authorities. As employers, local authorities are not the same as businesses. They are elected authorities, with particularly close links with citizens, whose values are shaped by those citizens. They must seek to shape attitudes within an area.
By not allowing the quota system to operate and not allowing positive discrimination, the Government are seriously affecting local authorities. The Derbyshire Coalition of Disabled People—an activist body working for disabled rights—is based in Clay Cross in north-east Derbyshire. That group undoubtedly has had a great impact upon local authorities throughout Derbyshire, none more than North-East Derbyshire district council.
Programmes such as "Towards Equality", in which disabled people are trained for jobs with a local authority or another organisation, are very important. Such programmes may now be taken away from local authorities because of a spurious argument about level playing fields and about how disabled people generally are to benefit from the provisions of the legislation. Local authorities are special, because the views of local people are reflected back to them, and we should take that seriously into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) visited the Derbyshire Coalition for Disabled People and the district council, and he understands the close connection between them and the impact that that organisation of disabled people run by disabled people has made. It would be a pity if the organisation now found itself fighting a harder battle with local authorities in areas where it has previously had its greatest response.
My second point arises from points raised during the debate on the first batch of amendments. It was mentioned that a cost assessment of the operation of the Bill would


be considered. We have always asked how many people are supposed to be covered by the Disability Discrimination Bill.
We know that a cost assessment of £17 billion was made for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and that the number of people to which the Bill applied was 6.5 million, or 10 per cent. of the population. The Government have never stated how many people this Bill is designed to apply to. If a cost assessment is likely to be made, the Government must have some idea of the number of people to whom these amendments and others apply. I hope that the Minister will give us those figures when he replies.

Mr. Paice: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) to his position. I join his hon. Friends in hoping that he will spend many years on the Opposition Front Bench. In a genuine expression of feeling, I join him in thanking the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for his work; he dealt with the issues throughout Committee stage with his usual humorous, but nevertheless extremely well-meaning and deliberative, intent.
We have heard a lot about quotas. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, provisions for the abolition of the quota and everything that went with it were already a part of the Bill when it left this House. To reopen that debate at this time is hardly appropriate. We debated the quota and the fact that it required registration, and a large number of disabled people did not want to register for personal reasons, some of which were that it stigmatised and categorised them, which they did not like. That is why the priority interview scheme cannot continue. If there is no registration, there can be no scheme as practised.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South and most of his colleagues, as well as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) have pushed me further about what local authorities can do. They will be able to do virtually anything to encourage and enable disabled people to work for them, as long as they appoint the person who is most suitable for the job after they have made reasonable adjustment.
I must stress that point—it is after they have made the reasonable adjustment. There is no maximum for such adjustment. If the local authority is prepared to invest vast sums of money in making provision so that a disabled person is suitable for a job, that is up to the authority, and it has that privilege. I share the view of a number of hon. Members that local authorities are the ideal organisation to set a good example to employers, but appointing a less suitable person to a job is not a good example to set to anyone.

Mr. Corbett: No one is suggesting that.

Mr. Paice: But that is precisely what has been suggested in Opposition Members' speeches, and what has been practised in a few local authorities. We want every local authority to have the opportunity to do what it democratically decides to do to encourage and enable disabled people to apply, be interviewed and be considered for any vacancies that arise. They can do what they like in the manner of making reasonable adjustment. Ultimately, they must decide on the most suitable person for the job. The one thing that they must not do is to

disadvantage someone who is not disabled. They must use the best person, regardless of whether or not he or she is disabled.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks, and for giving way. May I make this matter as clear as I am able? No one is looking for privileged treatment for people with disabilities. What has been argued today and during earlier stages in the passage of the Bill is that job applicants should be judged by the same criteria for their fitness, and that if the successful applicant happens to have disabilities, that matter should properly be addressed. That is all that was being asked. My colleagues and I might have wanted to go further and ask for positive discrimination, but we did not do so.

Mr. Paice: It is a matter of interpretation. If it is as the hon. Gentleman says, then that is fine. There is no problem with local authorities considering disabled people in the manner that he described and appointing them. I was under the clear impression, however, from a number of the speeches of his hon. Friends, that they wanted to take it much further and to discriminate positively in favour of disabled people at the appointment stage, which would not be permissible under the Bill, for the reasons that I described.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) referred to employers having misconceptions. Under the Bill, any employer would have to ensure that, if he discriminated against a disabled person, the discrimination was not based on any unreasonable misconception, and he would have to justify it according to the new amendments from the other place in this group, which I support.
Every employer will have to be able to stand up in an industrial tribunal, if the case gets that far, and demonstrate that discrimination was justified and that it was material to the circumstances of the case and the reasons for it were substantial. Those are important points. If he has misconceptions and brands all disabled people in some prejudicial way, it will cause him serious trouble. That is the purpose of the law—to ensure that disabled people who might suffer from such misconceptions are protected.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The case that I raised was not a hypothetical one. It was a real case, which I referred to one of his then ministerial colleagues, who is no longer in the Government.
What it proved was that even employers in very important organisations, such as major police authorities, were not aware that they were piling handicap on handicap for a woman whose disability was totally irrelevant to the job that she was doing. To say, in her case, "You can't belong to the pension fund," really was highly culpable, yet they thought that they were acting properly.
What the Minister is now saying raises the whole question of legal representation. I am sure that he recognises that many disabled people will feel unable to pursue their own cases. More fortunate people will seek the highest legal advice. That is a very important problem for disabled people who cannot afford to do so. It is not one that I am trying to create, but one that they tell me about day by day as we discuss the Bill.

Mr. Paice: I must emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that we are certainly not encouraging all cases


to go to an industrial tribunal. I hope that he will not interpret my earlier remarks as saying so. As I made clear on Report, we are trying to change employers' attitudes and thereby change their behaviour towards disabled people.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would rightly challenge this, but what are the sanctions if they do not treat disabled people fairly? Ultimately, employers have to be prepared to defend their case in an industrial tribunal. I have no desire to see thousands of cases go to such tribunals. I want disabled people to be given their proper opportunities by employers the length and breadth of the country.
On the case of the lady to whom the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe referred, will he reflect on what I said about pensions? Although we face a slight procedural difficulty in that one of the amendments in this group refers to pensions, the next group predominantly concerns occupational pensions, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will reply at length to the right hon. Gentleman when we discuss that group.
In that lady's case, in which disability was irrelevant to the job at hand, discrimination would normally have been unreasonable. Discrimination because of a disability that is totally irrelevant to a person's suitability for a job would normally be considered unreasonable.
A number of other hon. Members spoke—largely about quotas and whether or not positive discrimination was possible. I remind the hon. Member for Nottingham. East (Mr. Heppell) that positive discrimination is not allowed in race or gender legislation either, and that was enacted under a Labour Government.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East asked about clubs and societies. Disabled people will not be covered by part III, because that is addressed to the general public; membership of a closed club or society is not a service to the public. Again, that mirrors the sex discrimination legislation.
I have responded to the principal points that were raised. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 16 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) This section does not apply in relation to any benefit under an occupational pension scheme or any other benefit payable in money or money's worth under a scheme or arrangement for the benefit of employees in respect of—

(a) termination of service;
(b) retirement, old age or death;
(c) accident, injury, sickness or invalidity; or
(d) any other prescribed matter.")

Mr. Burt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 99.

Mr. Burt: Clause 4, in its present form, will cover actions of an employer in providing opportunities to employees for pensions and insurance benefits. These will fall within the existing wording of clause 4(1) and (2). However, the actions of trustees and managers of a pension scheme are not covered, as they are not the employer.
Amendment No. 27 will imply a rule of non-discrimination against disabled people into the rules of occupational schemes. That means that any discriminatory decision taken by trustees will be contrary to the rules of the scheme. A disabled person affected will be able to seek redress through the dispute resolution mechanisms that already exist for pension schemes. The regulation-making powers in sub-paragraphs 3 and 4 of Lords amendment No. 27 modify the existing powers in part II to enable the regulations to make special provisions for trustees of pension schemes.
To go to the meat of the matter, where a disabled applicant has a pre-existing medical condition which is likely to increase the risk of ill health retirement or death in service, it is important that employers should be able to take just as much account of that as they would if the person were not disabled. However, employers will want to ensure that their decisions are based on sound advice, such as actuarial or medical advice. Many disabled people have disabilities that do not affect their life expectancy or likelihood of ill health retirement, and the amendments will make sure that they can no longer be unfairly denied access to an employer's pension scheme.
The amendment to clause 6, Lords amendment No. 17, will disapply the duty of reasonable adjustment for occupational pensions and certain other similar benefits and provides a regulation-making power to prescribe benefits for additional types of risk to be covered by this exclusion. Again, we will consult on the use of that power—for example, as to whether the list of benefits is felt to be complete.
Occupational pension schemes are not the only means whereby employers can make provision for their employees' future. There are also other insurance benefits. Lords amendment No. 28 inserts a new clause on insurance benefits and covers the situation where an employer makes arrangements with an insurance company for insurance benefits such as private health insurance or the opportunity for such benefits to be received by the employer's employees.
The insurance company will act unlawfully against the disabled person under this new clause if it treats that person in a way that would be an act of discrimination under part III if done by the company with regard to a member of the public. A disabled person would be able to take a complaint against the insurance company, and the employer at the same time if necessary, and an industrial tribunal would decide whether there was discrimination by either of them on the basis of a full view of the evidence.
Lords amendment No. 99 provides that the term "occupational pension scheme" is to have the same meaning in the Bill as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
The amendments provide the right balance between meeting the needs of disabled people and non-disabled people in occupational pension schemes and placing necessary requirements on employers. I believe that they achieve the Government's objective, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. McMaster: Now that the Government's Bill is taking its final shape, the United Kingdom's 6.5 million disabled people will judge it against the civil rights legislation that they have wanted so much for so long—


the legislation that was offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who was responsible for much of its drafting, and by some of my other hon. Friends since.
Despite the fact that the Bill as it stands today has been improved by the Opposition, following concession after concession, climbdown after climbdown and U-turn after U-turn by the Government—I was not on the Committee, but I have studied its proceedings and it is clear that the Opposition have managed to force the Government to change course since the Bill started out on its parliamentary voyage—the Bill is still a pale shadow of what it could and should be.
The measure of the Bill must be whether it makes disabled people full and equal citizens. Against that yardstick, it does not measure up. One of the great holes in the Bill is its failure to give disabled people full or equal rights in the provision of occupational pensions and insurance benefits. The fact that the Government have introduced amendments, albeit at the eleventh hour, that bring such matters into the ambit of the Bill should have been a good thing, but the effect—and I suspect the purpose—of those measures, is to enshrine in law the discrimination that already exists rather than to outlaw it.
On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, speaking on behalf of the Government, suggested that employers and insurance companies will be able to exclude—or limit the benefits offered to—disabled people considered to be higher risk. He said that the Government were
preventing the weighting of risk on grounds of disability but retaining it for health".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 1995; Vol. 566, c. 1000.]
On Report, he had stated that there would be cases where less favourable treatment would be justifiable. By no stretch of the imagination could that be called full and equal citizenship.
Will the Minister tell us exactly what that means in practice? What criteria will he use to determine the distinction between disability and ill health? Disputes and grey areas are inevitable and people will look to the Minister and his Department to sort them out. In the absence of a powerful commission to enforce the legislation, how will the Minister ensure that the measure is applied consistently, fairly and with equity?
The amendments allow for cost to be a justification for discrimination, yet, according to a recent research report by the Minister's own Department, there is no evidence to suggest that disabled people go off work due to sickness more often than do able-bodied people. In fact, the report shows that 44 per cent. of employers said that they found no difference in absence levels and 32 per cent. said that disabled staff were absent less often.
The amendments exclude occupational pensions and other benefits from the requirement on employers to make reasonable adjustments to assist the employment of disabled people. That exclusion is important. The Bill as it stands lists factors that are to be taken into account when deciding if it is reasonable to expect an employer to make adjustments—factors such as the impact, cost and practicality of the adjustment. To exclude pensions and insurance makes the non-discrimination rule in the amendments little more than window dressing. In the name of anti-discrimination legislation, the Government are institutionalising the unfairness that disabled people already face in obtaining equitable pensions and benefits.

To enshrine in law existing discrimination against disabled people is unfair and unjustifiable, but to try to peddle it as anti-discrimination legislation is shoddy and shabby.
The amendments will mean that, where a disabled person has been refused access to a scheme that is lawful under the terms of the Bill, there will be no requirement that the employer seek to make any adjustments to the employee's terms and conditions. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish stated:
the employer will not have to consider ways in which his overall remuneration package can be brought up to the level enjoyed by other employees".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 1995; Vol. 566, c. 1001.]
It could not be clearer than that.
The Government's substitute for proper civil rights legislation, which they have trailed as an historic advance in the struggle to give disabled people equal rights, in fact makes provisions for disabled people to be forced into a position where they have to sell their labour more cheaply—and to be less well rewarded—than non-disabled people who do the same job, in the same place, at the same time. That is the effect of what Lord Mackay said. He spelled out the Government's position for all to see. Instead of attempting to integrate disabled people into the work place, the Government are attempting to integrate discrimination into the law.
Why should disabled people be less entitled to pensions and insurance benefits than anyone else? The higher risk argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. It is neither logical nor fair, and evidence produced by the Minister's Department establishes that. The decision on whether a disabled person is eligible to participate in and contribute to a pension scheme is likely to be based on an estimate of risk, but that eventuality may never arise, which means that future benefits would be reduced because of the mere possibility of something happening at some indefinite time in the future.
The Minister will no doubt attempt to justify that by saying that that is how many pension schemes are assessed, but if it is lawful for schemes to exclude disabled people on the grounds of a higher health risk, he must produce evidence to prove that that is the case, because his Department is producing evidence to show the opposite.
There appear to be strong grounds for believing that the amendments seek not to give disabled people an absolute right to enter or enjoy the full benefits of a scheme and that, where people do not join a scheme on starting work but subsequently apply, trustees could refuse access or offer only limited membership. Will the Minister confirm whether that is his intention?
Why are the Government so set against a requirement that reasonable adjustment be made in respect of occupational pensions and insurance benefits? The problems are not insoluble. The Minister has a reputation for achieving what he wants to achieve, so surely it was not beyond his guile to devise some reasonable adjustments. For example, he could have required employers to make equivalent contributions to a private pension scheme. The Government often say that everyone should provide for his or her retirement. It would not have been an ideal solution, but it would have been better than what is on offer today.
Where no private scheme could be found, or where employer and employee could not reach agreement on a scheme's suitability, the Minister could have required the


employer to increase disabled employee's wages or salary by an amount equivalent to the normal contribution, thereby allowing the disabled person to buy into a scheme of his or her choice. Again, it is not an ideal solution, but it is better than what is on offer.
Those would have been reasonable adjustments in the light of the now famous Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange decision, in which it was determined that occupational pensions should be considered as deferred pay.
The effect of the amendments is that those disabled people who are deemed ineligible to participate in an occupational pension scheme will not have their pay deferred but will simply not receive that element of their pay. That is unfair and discriminatory. It is a back-door way of reducing the pay of disabled people during their lifetime. It is doubly unfair that many disabled people are likely to be excluded not because of a greater risk of ill health but simply because of a perceived risk.
For example, some schemes might take the ill-judged view that someone with diabetes or epilepsy is ineligible because he or she might—just might—develop complications later. Will the Minister clarify the Government's position as it relates to people with diabetes or epilepsy, for instance?
Yet again, disabled people are being singled out for unfair treatment. Under the amendments, it would be unlawful to exclude them because of risk. When I joined the parliamentary pension scheme, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe does so well in representing all Members of the House, I was not excluded because I am, I am ashamed to say, a smoker. No one asked me whether I was. The Minister no doubt also belongs to that scheme and was not excluded because he is a member of the House of Commons football team, which is also a high risk. Nor was he excluded when he was Minister responsible for setting up the Child Support Agency, which, at the time, must have been the most dangerous job in Britain.
A survey published in 1992 by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that disabled people are among the least likely to belong to a pension scheme. Some 34 per cent. of those who had a pre-retirement disability before the age of 50 had never belonged to an occupational pension scheme. The study also found that the chances of their ever having joined a scheme or attained rights to one decreased with the increasing severity of disability. The reason is simple: many disabled people simply cannot afford to join. They tend to earn less and must pay the inevitable additional costs of disability. The Bill and the amendments do nothing to change that. Worse, they build that position into the law.
The Minister will be aware that the Disability Alliance and Disablement Income Group have worked hard to produce a cogent, coherent and comprehensive document known as "There May Be Trouble Ahead"—perhaps prophetic words. It shows the inequity that exists in pension schemes and suggests ways of tackling that and other problems. The group is asking for a forum of all the interested parties to be set up. Is the Minister prepared to allow that forum to go ahead?
The Government cannot claim that the Bill is, in any shape or form, a comprehensive piece of anti-discrimination legislation so long as it excludes

pensions and benefits. Civil rights mean full and equal citizenship without qualification or exclusion. As the amendments are full of qualifications and exclusions, unless the Minister can convince us otherwise, we shall press them to a Division.

Ms Lynne: I simply wish to make a few comments about the recent research carried out by the Disability Alliance and Disablement Income Group, which shows that disabled people are already less likely to be in occupational pension schemes. More than two thirds of disabled women have not joined such schemes because they could not fulfil the conditions as a result of frequent changes of jobs or interrupted employment. People with pre-retirement disability were less likely to retain any rights to an occupational pension scheme.
On the surface, the Government's amendments look fine, but they do not really deal with the problem. I am extremely worried about amendment No. 17, which, as has already been said, could be the back door to reducing pay for disabled employees. We need reassurance on this matter, although I do not honestly believe that the Minister will give us the reassurance we need.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise to the Minister for missing part of his opening remarks. If he has covered the point that I want to raise, I apologise doubly.
I am concerned about the amendment that deals with insurance benefits. I realise that this is a fraught area. Although insurance is, by necessity, about the sharing of risks, insurance companies always make it their business to find out as much as they can in order to specify and appreciate the degree of risk in a case. In framing the amendment, have the Government accepted the principle that insurance companies that provide the services described in amendment No. 28(3) can adjust those services in terms of the amount of benefit paid, in line with a known disability or a disability that may occur in the future as a result of, say, a genetic condition?
A new clause moved in the other place does not clarify that. It seems to be possible for an employer, or an insurance company working on behalf of an employer, to discriminate against disabled people, particularly those with a genetic condition, in terms of the insurance benefits that they could receive. If so, they would be discriminated against.
Given the choice between the conflicting interests of getting as much information as possible and the sharing out of risks between all beneficiaries under an insurance scheme, on the balance of fairness and particularly given the ethos of the Bill before us, we should come down on the side of sharing the risks. We should ensure, as far as humanly possible, that insurance schemes are not loaded, either in terms of increased premiums or reduced benefits, against people with a potential disability. I hope that the Minister can offer me some assurance on that.

6 pm

Mr. Burt: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
I shall try to do what I can to offer reassurance, but as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, this is genuinely a difficult area. I must clear up one thing. We are talking about individuals as opposed to types or groups. An employer may discriminate where there are clear grounds for believing that a person, including a


disabled person, but not necessarily, represents a higher risk to the scheme because of his impaired health, and that higher risk could be justified on the grounds of cost. Any non-inclusion in the scheme's benefit provision will only be as a result of that person's health condition and not simply because the individual is disabled. Disabled persons whose propensity to take ill health retirement or die in service is not materially higher than other members would, of course, be entitled to be admitted to the scheme as normal.
That is the ground rule, but we are talking about dealing with individuals. We are trying to create a differential between two individuals who, although both may be described as disabled, may have different conditions which mean that the likelihood of ill health or risk of early retirement is much greater for one than the other. We can all think of such examples. Where an employee is to be excluded, the employer will have to prove that that refusal is based on substantial grounds, not simply on the mere fact of disability.
The most important question is, why should employers be permitted to discriminate on grounds of health? It is right that employers and scheme managers should continue to be able to make certain decisions on health grounds for a number of reasons. Employers have always been able to discriminate on grounds of health for such benefits. If that changed, employers could be faced with an unjustifiably large extra bill. It is estimated that the additional costs could be hundreds of millions of pounds a year. A significant amount of that additional expenditure would fall directly on the taxpayer, because approximately one third of pension scheme members are in public service pension schemes. Much of the balance would have to be passed on in the form of higher prices.
The pension schemes of many employers are too small to accept large potential liabilities for ill health and death benefits, and therefore those employers insure those risks in the commercial insurance market. Insurance companies operate strict underwriting criteria to control the risk which they accept. Those companies would offer policies that admitted individuals with all potential health conditions at truly prohibitive premium rates. It is more likely that they would not admit such individuals, so, effectively, the insurance route would be withdrawn.
As a result of the significant additional burden of costs and the lack of insurance, employers would seriously have to reconsider their options. There would be a real risk that many employers would restructure their employment packages to reduce or remove altogether any incapacity or death benefits. Some employers, if not permitted to take account of health risks, may simply wind up their schemes. Such are the likely changes in employment practice were the Bill not to allow employers to make decisions on the grounds of health
Hon. Members have asked whether it would be possible to unbundle contributions, and whether an individual disabled person's contribution rate could be reduced if he or she is only receiving age retirement benefits. Such a proposal would not only be completely at variance with the manner in which occupational pension schemes with benefits defined in terms of a member's final salary are operated, but would result in significant extra administrative difficulties disproportionate to any gain to the disabled person.
Such a change could be achieved fairly only after taking medical and actuarial advice. Even then, the resulting adjustment would be subjective and open to

dispute by the member. A doctor would be required to certify an individual's life expectancy or the probable length of his working life. On the basis of the medical prognosis, an actuary would then have to consider the value of the residual benefits compared with the total package. Overall, such a requirement would be disproportionately expensive and administratively messy.
Salary pension schemes in the United Kingdom are predominantly operated on what is known as a "balance of costs" basis. Employees pay a fixed contribution and the employer meets the rest of the cost on the basis of advice from the scheme actuary. Typically, scheme members pay only one third of the cost of the scheme benefits.
The employer considers the cost of providing the benefits in aggregate and does not try to isolate the costs for each individual member. The cost of the accruing benefits, however, will vary significantly between individuals according to their individual circumstances—for example, age or sex.
All individuals pay the same member contribution even though they may not be entitled to all the benefits. For example, a spouse's benefits are of no use to a single pensioner, and some benefits may be more valuable to certain members than others. For example, a pensioner who lives a long time will get more valuable benefits than someone who died shortly after retirement.
To suggest that a disabled person, who may get less valuable pension benefits from a scheme, should pay a lower contribution rate would therefore rewrite the way in which final salary occupational pension schemes operate. Other groups could make claims for similar treatment. For example, under current sex equality legislation there is no similar requirement that men should pay a lower member contribution rate because they tend to live less long in retirement than women. Such arrangements would lead to additional costs.
It should be remembered that membership of an occupational pension scheme is voluntary. If an individual member feels that he is going to get less valuable benefits out of a scheme than his own contributions, he can opt out. If he chose to take out a personal pension, he would, of course, be protected under part III.
People with a genetic predisposition are not covered by the Bill. That reflects the views of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which concluded that labelling that group as disabled was not the right way forward. We will consider the Committee's final report when it is available.

Mr. Wigley: If the report from the Committee on that important matter, which will be published before too long, suggested that the Bill should be changed to avoid discrimination against people on the basis of genetic information gained for insurance purposes, does the Minister have the facility to amend the Bill without having to come back with primary legislation?

Mr. Burt: No, I do not believe there is such a facility. The principle on which the hon. Gentleman will have to rely, and which may emerge from the Committee's report, would operate on an individual basis and the circumstances facing a particular applicant.
As I tried to establish from the start, that principle does not discriminate against disabled people in general. It will not be possible for an employer to exclude someone from


a pension scheme just because that person is disabled. The employer will have that right only if the nature of the disability is such that it would cause the sort of problem with the pension or insurance scheme as might affect anyone whether he is disabled or not. It is on those grounds that I put the case to the House. The individual is protected unless he has a marked disability which may cause concern.

Mr. McMaster: With the leave of the House, may I say that the Minister has simply reinforced our concerns, so we will divide the House on the amendment.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 249.

Division No. 225]
[6.07 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coe, Sebastian


Alexander, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Congdon, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Cran, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Valley)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dicks, Terry


Bates, Michael
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Sir Anthony


Booth, Hartley
Dykes, Hugh


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowis, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Faber, David


Bright, Sir Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Browning, Mrs Angela
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nicholas
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butcher, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butterfill, John
French, Douglas


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger


Carttiss, Michael
Gallie, Phil


Cash, William
Gardiner, Sir George


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Garnier, Edward


Churchill, Mr
Gill, Christopher


Clappison, James
Gillan, Cheryl


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles





Gorst, Sir John
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hannam, Sir John
Moate, Sir Roger


Hargreaves, Andrew
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G farrow W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Speed, Sir Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, Sir David
Sproat, Iain


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sykes, John


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mabne, Gerald
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)






Temple-Morris, Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Thomason, Roy
Waterson, Nigel


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Watts, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whittingdale, John


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trend, Michael
Willetts, David



Wilshire, David


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Derek Conway.


Ward, John





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cummings, John


Ainger, Nick
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Roseanna


Alton, David
Dafis, Cynog


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Darling, Alistair


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davidson, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Battle, John
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dewar, Donald


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dixon, Don


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Donohoe, Brian H


Bell, Stuart
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Berry, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Betts, Clive
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Blunkett, David
Fatehett, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Brazier, Julian
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burden, Richard
Foulkes, George


Byers, Stephen
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Garrett, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Gerrard, Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godsiff, Roger


Church, Judith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mildred


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Ctelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coffey, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Gunnell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Hall, Mike


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hanson, David


Corston, Jean
Hardy, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cox, Tom
Henderson, Doug





Heppell, John
Morley, Elliot


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hodge, Margaret
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hoey, Kate
Mudle, George


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mullin, Chris


Home Robertson, John
Murphy, Paul


Hood, Jimmy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Olner, Bill


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
O'Neill, Martin


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoyle, Doug
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Bridget (Lewisham East)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Gordon (Pende)


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Janner, Greville
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Reid, Dr John


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Keen, Alan
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Rooker, Jeff


Khabra, PiaraS
Rooney, Terry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Salmond, Alex


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Short, Clare


Llwyd, Elfyn
Simpson, Alan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Skinner, Dennis


McAllbn, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Spellar, John


McCartney, Ian
Squire, Rachel


McCrea, The Reverend William



McFall, John
Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Mackinlay, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McLeish, Henry
Straw, Jack


McMaster, Gordon
Sutcliffe, Gerry


MacShane, Denis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John
Taylor Matthew (Truro)


Madden, Max
Timms, Stephen


Maddock, Diana
Turner, Dennis


Mahon, Alice
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mandeteon, Peter
Walley, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Welsh, Andrew


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Wicks, Malcolm


Martlew, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Meale, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Michael, Alun
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wray, Jimmy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wright, Dr Tony


Milburn, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Miller, Andrew



Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to.

Clause 7

EXEMPTION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 5, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) In this section—

"anniversary" means the anniversary of the coming into force of this section; and
"review" means a review of the effect of this section.

(4) Before making any order under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall conduct a review.
(5) Unless he has already begun or completed a review under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall begin to conduct a review immediately after the fourth anniversary.
(6) Any review shall be completed within nine months.
(7) In conducting any review, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such organisations representing the interests of employers as he considers appropriate; and
(b) such organisations representing the interests of disabled persons in employment or seeking employment as he considers appropriate.

(8) If, on completing a review, the Secretary of State decides to make an order under subsection (2), he shall make such an order to come into force not later than one year after the commencement of the review.
(9) If, on completing a review, the Secretary, of State decides not to make such an order, he shall not later than one year after the commencement of the review lay before Parliament a report—

(a) summarising the results of the review; and
(b) giving the reasons for his decision.

(10) Any report made by the Secretary of State under subsection (9) shall include a summary of the views expressed to him in his consultations.")

Mr. Paice: I beg to move, That this douse doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
As the House will know, this is an important clause. We are exempting employers with fewer than 20 employees from the Bill's employment provisions because we recognise that it is likely to be more difficult and burdensome for them than for larger businesses to get to grips with the new right and to have available the advice that they need. However, the Government have listened carefully to the arguments calling for changes to the clause.
Although we have, in earlier debates, rebutted many of the suggested amendments, we have not been inflexible. We amended the Bill on Report so that the power to change the threshold could not be used to raise the threshold above 20. In reaching that decision, we recognised that it was unlikely that there would ever be a need to raise the threshold above the initial number. I gave an undertaking to bring forward a further amendment, which was passed in the other place and, on its own, would have required the Secretary of State to review the operation of the clause within five years of its coming into force and to give Parliament the opportunity to debate the issue. It would also have required the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the effects of clause 7 if, before the fourth anniversary of the clause coming into force, she proposed to use an order to change the threshold number.
However, on Report in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness O'Cathain raised the issue of whether there should be a review before any change in the threshold, whenever proposed. My noble Friend the Minister responsible for the employment of disabled people agreed

to consider the matter further, and duly returned with an amendment to that effect on Third Reading in the other place.
The overall effect is that, if at any time the Secretary of State proposes to make an order to change the threshold number, a review must be held, whether the order is to be made within the first four years of the operation of the section or at any later time. A review must be held immediately after the fourth anniversary of the clause's coming into effect, even if no change in the threshold is then proposed, unless a review has by then already started or been finished.
The Lords amendment also requires that any review must be completed within nine months. The Secretary of State would be required to consult employer organisations and organisations representing the interests of disabled people in employment or looking for employment. If the review led the Secretary of State to decide on a change in the threshold, that would have to come into force within a year from the start of the review. If, after a review, the Secretary of State decided not to change the threshold, the amendment would require her to lay a report on the results of the review before Parliament and, at the same time, give reasons for her decision.
The Government have always maintained that it would be best to gain experience of the legislation before considering whether there was a case for widening its scope. We believe it is right to keep the threshold at 20. In the light of the changes, I hope that the House will accept that it is a reasonable position to take.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Once again, I am extremely pleased to welcome a Government climbdown—[interruption.] I shall give way to the Secretary of State for Social Security if he wishes to intervene. He clearly does not, as he does not have the courage of his convictions.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who supported us so magnificently throughout the passage of the Bill. I regard him as a truly hon. Friend. I know that disabled people are extremely grateful to him for the tremendous contribution that he has made to our achievements.
Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in the moderate style to which we have become accustomed, said that the Government were parking on Labour territory. I welcome that description of the Government's position. We have been told throughout the passage of the Bill that the exemption of small firms from the obligation not to discriminate against disabled people was necessary. We have been told that such firms should be defined as those employing fewer than 20 people.
The Government opted for the figure of 20, and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) told us that that figure had been chosen because it reflected the quota legislation. Throughout the Bill's progress through the House, the Minister agreed that 20 was the best figure. Of course a cut-off at 20 for a 3 per cent. quota makes good sense, as 3 per cent. of 20 is a good deal less than one job. I think that even the Minister's mathematics might lead him to that conclusion, but to import that figure into legislation that deals with the rights of individuals rather than percentages of an overall work force makes no sense.
Taken with the abolition of the quota, the measure diminishes the rights of disabled people. However confused the Minister might feel, we have the support of every organisation of disabled people on that issue. The provision introduces the phenomenon of legal discrimination. By the time the Bill had reached Third Reading, Ministers were beginning to sound less convinced. We were told that the threshold should never be raised and that 20 was still the best figure. Now the Government are even less sure. They have finally admitted that the figure of 20 might be wrong and that a review of the principle of exemption will be necessary in five years. The Government did not mention that on Second Reading or throughout the Committee discussions.
I think that the Minister has already concluded that the figure of 20 is wrong. All disabled people should have a right to fair and equal access to the jobs market. I look forward to the day when the denial of employment rights to disabled people in small, medium and large firms will be abolished altogether.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he comment on the huge number of employers who employ fewer than 20 people? He has made a powerful point that deserves the attention of both sides of the House.

Mr. Clarke: As always with disability issues, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I have some private regard for the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, even though I believe that he defends the most abysmal of policies. He does not realise that he must stand at the Dispatch Box and defend a Government that would exclude 96 per cent. of firms from employment discrimination policies and present it as progress.

Mr. Wigley: When he responds to this brief debate, will the Minister clarify whether the Government are to some extent returning to the provisions originally in clause 7? As that clause stood originally, it was possible for the Secretary of State to amend the threshold of 20 immediately by order. I understand that there will now be a built-in time delay of up to 12 months before it can be operational. If the Secretary of State believes that there should be an immediate change, will he be able to implement that change without going through the review mechanism and the time delay that is built into the process by the Lords amendment?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman could put that interpretation on it, although he refers to the maximum period. We propose that the review must take no more than nine months, and there is no reason why it could not be conducted much more quickly. We are anxious to ensure that any decision to change the figure is made on the basis of a proper examination of all of the issues.
While I appreciate the personal note in the speech made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), it was a case of smiling while wielding the knife—even though the knife proved to be made of rubber.

Mr. Clarke: That is more than the Secretary of State does.

Mr. Paice: I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he is treading on dangerous ground this evening. Every time

that he congratulates the Government on what he classifies as a "U-turn" or a "climbdown", he is undermining the Labour Front-Bench campaign that we are lurching to the right. I can only assume from everything that the hon. Gentleman has said this evening that the Conservatives are lurching to the left. The hon. Gentleman could find himself in real trouble with his party.
I announced the decision to re-examine the issue before its fifth anniversary on Report six months ago. The fact that it comes as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman only serves to underline his lack of attention at that time.
What the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said about the number of businesses is correct, but far more important is where the jobs are. More than 80 per cent. of jobs are in businesses with more than 20 employees, so the job opportunities of the disabled will not be seriously affected by the proposal.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister knows that the Government make a great point of wanting to help small employers. They are very concerned about small employers and, by extension, presumably they are very concerned with the employees of small employers. The Minister's constituency is famous because of Newmarket. Can he tell us how many stables in his constituency employ fewer than 20 employees? It is a very important point and the fact that 96 per cent. of employers are excluded must be a matter of considerable concern. Many people admire the Minister's constituency.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's admiration for my constituency. I must be straight with him and admit that Newmarket is not in my constituency—although my constituency surrounds it and the racing industry is important to it.
I do not know the specific answer to his question, but the nub of the issue is that we are not encouraging small employers to discriminate in any way. In the amendment and the clause that it amends, we are saying that small employers should have their particular difficulties recognised by not being forced to comply with the legislation. We hope that small employers will be enlightened: we hope that they will adopt the same approach as other employers and employ disabled people. The amendment does not encourage or exhort small businesses to discriminate against the disabled.
During the Committee stage, Labour Members suggested that a great phalanx of small businesses were waiting to discriminate against disabled people. They could do that now, but they are not doing it in any great number. We are simply trying to protect them from over-burdensome regulations.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I am especially grateful for the Minister's remarks about small firms. He knows that we are disappointed about this and other issues. He said that, although small firms will not be obliged to comply with these provisions, we shall look to those small firms to embrace the Bill's aims. I think that some progress has been made. Will the Minister confirm that the largest growth in jobs in the past few years has occurred in the small firms sector? It is vital to the strength and efficiency of our economy that that should continue into the future.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is right: we do look to the small firms sector. The Government are second to


none in their desire to see the small business sector continue to prosper and expand. However, it will do so only if it is not affected by too many regulations. That is why the Government are anxious to minimise the burdens placed on small businesses across all Government activities and policies, and it is why we are proposing the threshold of 20 at this time.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks about what I said about encouraging small businesses. If he reads the speech that I gave on Report, he will find that I said it then as well. We want small businesses to adopt an enlightened approach, but we simply do not believe that they should be forced to adopt fairly expensive measures and to understand arid follow all of the legislative ins and outs of the Bill. As I have said, the review will take place in five years' time, if not before. I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 21 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 22, after clause 11, to insert the following new clause—Discrimination against contract workers—
.—(1) It is unlawful for a principal, in relation to contract work, to discriminate against a disabled person—

(a) in the terms on which he allows him to do that work;
(b) by not allowing him to do it or continue to do it;
(c) in the way he affords him access to any benefits or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or
(d) by subjecting him to any other detriment.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to benefits of any description if the principal is concerned with the provision (whether or not for payment) of benefits of that description to the public, or to a section of the public which includes the contract worker in question, unless that provision differs in a material respect from the provision of the benefits by the principal to contract workers.
(3) The provisions of this Part (other than subsections (1) to (3) of section 3) apply to any principal, in relation to contract work, as if he were, or would be, the employer of the contract worker and as if any contract worker supplied to do work for him were an employee of his.
(4) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 28, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled.
(5) This section applies only in relation to contract work done at an establishment in Great Britain (the provisions of section 38 about the meaning of "employment at an establishment in Great Britain" applying for the purposes of this subsection with the appropriate modifications).
(6) In this section—

"principal" means a person ("A") who makes work available for doing by individuals who are employed by another person who supplies them under a contract made with A;
"contract work" means work so made available; and
"contract worker" means any individual who is supplied to the principal under such a contract."

Mr. Paice: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 25, 71, 73, 101, 105, 108 and 109.

Mr. Paice: The amendments deal with the coverage by this Bill of trade organisations and contract workers. That

is an issue that we discussed at considerable length in Committee and on Report, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. If hon. Members want to pursue the matter, they may.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 29 and 31 to 42 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 43 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 44 to 46 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 47, after clause 22, to insert the following new clause—("Part IIIA—

EDUCATION

EDUCATION OF DISABLED PERSONS

.—(1) In section 161(5) of the Education Act 1993 (information relating to pupils with special educational needs to be included in annual report), omit the words from "and in this subsection" to the end.

(2) After section 161(5) of that Act insert—
(6) The annual report for each county, voluntary or grant-maintained school shall include a report containing information as to—

(a) the arrangements for the admission of disabled pupils;
(b) the steps taken to prevent disabled pupils from being treated less favourably than other pupils; and
(c) the facilities provided to assist access to the school by disabled pupils.

(7) In this section—

"annual report" means the report prepared under the articles of government for the school in accordance with section 30 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 or, as the case may be, paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to this Act; and
"disabled pupils" means pupils who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995."

(3) In section 1 of the Education Act 1994 (establishment of the Teacher Training Agency) add, at the end—
(4) In exercising their functions, the Teacher Training Agency shall have regard to the requirements of persons who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995."")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Paice.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 134.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Once again, I am delighted to welcome a climbdown by the Government. Earlier, the Minister talked about what he thought was an ambiguity about lurching to the right. I must remind him that their Lordships, including hereditary peers whose abolition my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) supports, could not for a moment fathom the right-wing approach being commended to them. It was they who brought some reality to this aspect of the Bill.
Throughout the passage of the Bill we have tabled amendments to bring education within its purview. Ministers consistently told us that such amendments were impossible and unnecessary. Once again, the Government refused to budge—until they did. So I welcome the amendments, I accept the Government's climbdown and


I look forward to further revisions of the Bill that will finally ensure genuine equality of opportunity for disabled children and adults in education.
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to clarify exactly who and what are included in the continuing general exemption of educational establishments. In particular, we want to know whether all early-years facilities regulated by the Children Act 1989—I led for the Opposition on it—are covered by the Bill.
An amendment was moved by the Opposition in the Lords on this very matter. The Minister who replied complained that raising the issue of day care for the under-fives on Report was making his life "extremely difficult". No doubt it was; sometimes that is the job of an Opposition. The reason why it was necessary was the Government's announcement in July this year that they intended to introduce a pre-school voucher scheme. It is the Government's intention that it should come into force at the same time as the Bill. It appears that the result will be that any place accepting vouchers under the scheme will be treated in law as an educational establishment.
6.45 pm
It is this that has caused our concern, and we are entitled to express it. Many of the places that currently provide day care for four-year-olds and that will be eligible under the proposed voucher scheme also provide places for three-year-olds. Many of them are not schools or educational establishments, but they do employ teachers. My question is therefore relevant. When considering the Bill, we need to know whether it will apply to pre-school day care facilities. Although the question is a simple one, many people outside the House will be interested to hear the Minister's response.
If a day care centre accommodates both three and four-year-olds—those using vouchers and others who do not—will the establishment be entirely exempt under the Bill, or will it be exempt only with regard to the four-year-olds who will be funded by vouchers? It should be easy enough to answer that, with all the departmental resources available to Ministers.
Finally, we believe that the voucher scheme is an ill thought out and hasty proposal. We shall want to ensure that it does not lead to the exclusion of day care centres for young children from the terms of the Bill, and that the definition of exempted educational establishments remains consistent with the provisions of current children's legislation.

Mr. Paice: I might point out that the hon. Gentleman is on his hobby-horse again. I suggest that he read what was said on Report in the House. He will find that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), then the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, gave the undertaking on education which is now covered by the amendments from the other place that I am proposing to accept—

Mr. Clarke: The Minister knows that I always try to be fair. Of course I recall what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I also remember his White Paper of July, which contained no reference to education. I further recall, on Second Reading, that he rejected the very arguments that the Minister is now pursuing.

Mr. Paice: The world moves on. I should have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J.

Hannam), who was behind many of the changes on education. It is therefore false to suggest that we have just seen the light: we made our position clearly known to the House some six months ago.
Hon. Members have argued for the inclusion of education in the part of the Bill dealing with access to goods and services. The amendments propose an alternative way of dealing with the matter, requiring reports and information to be published. I shall not go into all the details, because the amendments are self-explanatory.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about the general exemption with regard to pre-school age children. The voucher scheme is widely welcomed by parents throughout the country as an opportunity for them to get their under-fives into a form of education. We are consulting at the present time about the voucher scheme, and legislation will be brought before the House to enable it to happen. When it comes before the House, these issues will have to be addressed in it. I am quite happy to make that statement.
It is the case at the present time that, as drafted, a day care facility would be covered as goods or services—assuming that it was open to the public—by part III of the Bill, the goods and services clauses. On educational establishments, we are looking at amendments as I have described, and if changes have to be made to resolve the issue with voucher schemes, that will be done at the time of the legislation that the Government will be laying before the House in due course.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 50, after clause 22, to insert the following new clause—("Part IIIB—

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Taxis

TAXI ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS

.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations ("taxi accessibility regulations") for the purpose of securing that it is possible—

(a) for disabled persons—

(i) to get into and out of taxis in safety;
(ii) to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort; and

(b) for disabled persons in wheelchairs—

(i) to be conveyed in safety into and out of taxis while remaining in their wheelchairs; and
(ii) to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort while remaining in their wheelchairs.

(2) Taxi accessibility regulations may, in particular—

(a) require any regulated taxi to conform with provisions of the regulations as to—

(i) the size of any door opening which is for the use of passengers;
(ii) the floor area of the passenger compartment;
(iii) the amount of headroom in the passenger compartment;
(iv) the fitting of restraining devices designed to ensure the stability of a wheelchair while the taxi is moving;

(b) require the driver of any regulated taxi which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, to comply with provisions of the regulations as to the carrying of ramps or other devices designed to facilitate the loading and unloading of wheelchairs;


(c) require the driver of any regulated taxi in which a disabled person who is in a wheelchair is being carried (while remaining in his wheelchair) to comply with provisions of the regulations as to the position in which the wheelchair is to be secured.

(3) The driver of a regulated taxi which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he fails to comply with any requirement imposed on him by the regulations; or
(b) the taxi fails to conform with any provision of the regulations with which it is required to conform.

(4) A person who is guilty of such an offence is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(5) In this section—

"passenger compartment" has such meaning as may be prescribed;
"regulated taxi" means any taxi to which the regulations are expressed to apply;
"taxi" means a vehicle licensed under—

(a) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or
(b) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869,
but does not include a taxi which is drawn by a horse or other animal.")

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, after subsection (2)(c), at end insert—
'(2A) A taxi access order shall be made in such terms as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and may, in particular—

(a) apply to more than one transport facility or class of transport facility;
(b) authorise the owner of a transport facility to—

(i) charge such fees for the admission of taxis to that transport facility as may be prescribed in the order;
(ii) designate places at that transport facility at which persons may be taken up by or set down from taxis; and
(iii) impose such other conditions for the maintenance of safety or the control of traffic at that transport facility as may be specified in the order;

(c) in relation to a transport facility where, prior to the passing of this Act, the owner has entered into a contract or agreement granting another person the exclusive right to provide taxi or private hire car services at that transport facility, postpone that date on which the order is to apply to that transport facility until—

(i) the day following the date on which that contract or agreement expires; or
(ii) such other date as may be prescribed in the order.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendments (d) to (g), Government amendment (i) and amendment (h) to the Lords amendment, Lords amendments Nos. 51 to 64, Lords amendment No. 65 and amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 66, 90, 92 to 94, 96, 102, 103, 107 and 110.

Mr. Clarke: The amendments apply to the issue of transport. I am happy to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box from the Department of Transport, and assure him that transport was an extremely important issue when we debated disability matters.
The House will recognise that the Government have now accepted the spirit of the amendments on public transport that the Opposition tabled during the early stages

of the Bill. Their conversion, as on others matters, did not come easily. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) argued:
The most flexible, sensible and practical way
to bring about a radical improvement in accessible transport vehicles was
outside the scope of legislative requirements."—[Official Report, 24 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 153.]
At that stage, Ministers seemed reluctant to accept that regulations based on consultations were indeed flexible, sensible and practical and that they could and should be provided for in the Bill, so we had to persuade them to the contrary, which is what Parliament is supposed to be about. We had to show them that flexible and practical regulation was best done within the terms of the legislation designed for that purpose and that the best and most sensible place to pass such legislation was indeed within the Bill. But, no, they said, they would not back down on transport—until they did.
By the time we reached Report, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks took a different view. He said then, and this is a real exercise in the study of empiricism:
The Government certainly support the spirit of the new clauses"—[Official Report, 28 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 859.]
which were tabled by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and by me.
I must tell the Minister that the hon. Member for Exeter, who is a distinguished member of the all-party disability group, deserves more than a fig leaf to cover Government inadequacies. He certainly has more respect from Opposition Members than he has from Members on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Member for Exeter and I put forward our views. I will not be churlish: I am glad that the Minister came to the view that we expressed and that we have consequently been able to make progress towards achieving a fully accessible transport system. The Government backed down.
The Lords amendments before us today provide that flexible and sensible timetables should be set within the context of an agreed objective that all vehicles should be accessible to and usable by disabled passengers. We welcome that. Of course we do, having argued for so long to have the principle accepted. We welcome the conversion, no matter how late in the day, because it is better than no conversion at all. That being said, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to put a little more flesh on the bones. It would certainly be helpful to have some further indication that the timetable that the Government have in mind on these matters is made known to the House.
I now come to the specific area covered by the amendments to Lords amendments No. 50 and 65, which address the final anomaly on which the Government were most reluctant to back down: access by taxis to the facilities operated by providers of other forms of public transport. We argued at earlier stages and throughout our discussions that it was ludicrous for the Government to propose new requirements for disabled people to enjoy full and equal access to railway and bus stations while the Bill explicitly exempted transport vehicles. That was conceded, but only up to a point. Disabled people were offered access to trains and to stations but were given no guarantee that an accessible taxi would be available on arrival to take them to their final destination. It is to address that anomaly that we tabled our amendments to Lords amendments Nos. 50 and 65.
I must say to the Minister that I seldom take a taxi anywhere in London—I suspect that he agrees with me on this point—without hearing his name mentioned. We are giving him the opportunity tonight to rescue his reputation. I shall even tell the taxi driver tonight—if we leave the House at a reasonable time with yet another victory—that he is not as bad as he is painted in taxi driver circles, but even that will not save his seat at the next general election. Licensed taxis or hackney cabs are covered by this legislation—this is the kernel of the issue—but private hire vehicles are not. The problem is that operators of transport facilities, such as airports, seaports, railway and bus stations, are free to grant a monopoly to private hire as opposed to taxi firms in providing services to passengers.
If the Bill were passed without further amendments, a private hire firm winning such a monopoly would be under no obligation whatever to provide vehicles that were wheelchair accessible. It would be possible for a disabled person to hail a taxi on the street or join a queue at an ordinary taxi rank, confident in the knowledge that the vehicle would be designed to accommodate a wheelchair user, but it would not be possible to have that confidence at a railway station in those circumstances. That is why we tabled our amendments and welcome the fact that the Government have finally addressed the issue by tabling amendments of their own. But it is truly a last-minute conversion.
The text of the Government's amendment first became available to me at 5.15 yesterday evening.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): indicated assent.

Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the Minister confirms that point.
My colleagues in another place had raised this question in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. I am delighted to congratulate those colleagues, those noble Lords and Ladies, on the magnificent job they did.
Amendments were tabled in the other place on Third Reading last week. The Government must have known then that they were in an indefensible position. That certainly seemed clear from the Minister's replies in another place, given by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, whom I know well from his experience as an elected Member for a Scottish constituency, and the earlier climbdown on my own Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which was not dissimilar to this evening's events.
He was at his wits' end to find a convincing reason why car services provided by private hire companies at railway stations and airports should not be brought into the scope of the Bill. A few days ago, in another place, he argued that there was no problem, because owners of transport facilities had a commercial interest in ensuring that such services were adequate to meet the needs of all their customers. If that were a sufficient response, however, there would be no need for any legislation governing vehicles. I suspect that, in his heart, the Minister concedes that.
7 pm
The Government have already conceded the principle, which is important. They have recognised that the needs of the minority of the travelling public—wheelchair

users—were not necessarily guaranteed by the commercial interests of operators in the maximising of revenue. Yet, for some curious reason, the Government were not prepared to accept that the principle applying to other aspects of transport provision should apply to this aspect as well. Another argument was presented: disabled people, it was said in another place, could book taxis in advance, and there was therefore no need to impose a requirement for accessible taxis to be available on arrival. That is a remarkable view; I know of no disabled people's organisation that would accept it for a second.
It was said that there would be no problem for disabled travellers who booked a taxi and then found that they must pay for the two hours during which the driver waited for an aeroplane that arrived two hours late. In the Minister's experience, there was no problem with planes arriving late—except, he said, those crossing the Atlantic, when there were technical problems with "windage up high". I think that we would find such an expression unacceptable in the present context!
Those are not the arguments of a Government standing firm on a principle that they believe to be right; they are the meanderings of Ministers who discovered that they were creating a legal loophole, and who were reluctant to admit either that they were doing so or that they needed the Opposition to point out the folly of their ways.
The Government have finally admitted the need to act, and—as I have said—the amendments duly arrived in my office at 5.15 pm yesterday. Until then, not even the chairman of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—who has worked hard to convince the Government, had seen the text. The Minister has presented us today with evidence of an unbelievable conversion, verging on the road to Damascus. In a Bill that is now full to the brim with Government climbdowns and U-turns, this is the latest and most hurried concession of all.
Perhaps the Government decided to hold Christmas at Hallowe'en, and give an unexpected present to all disabled people; but they would not have done so without the pressure exerted on them by the Labour party in Parliament, and by organisations representing disabled people. I congratulate the latter warmly, and invite the Minister to do the same.
We are, I think, entitled to ask the Minister to spell out the intention and effect of his proposals. He must tell us why he believes that his amendments are preferable to ours. If he satisfies us that they remove the legal anomaly to which we have repeatedly drawn attention, we shall be happy to withdraw our proposals, in the excellent spirit of co-operation that we have extended to an unwilling Government—but, I must warn the Minister, with the satisfaction of yet another victory won.
Under the Government's amendments, private hire vehicles with monopoly contracts at stations, ports and airports are to be subject to the taxi provisions in the Bill, but with modifications. The key taxi provision in the Bill is that all taxis are to be wheelchair-accessible. We need to know whether the measure will stand in full, or will be subject to modification. We seek the Minister's assurance that a disabled person alighting from a train or aeroplane will be guaranteed that the first vehicle at the rank will be fully accessible, and that all vehicles providing hire car services at stations will be fully accessible on the same terms as licensed taxis plying for trade on the public highway.
I hope that the Minister's replies will be in the affirmative. I look forward to the day when disabled people will be able to travel in the same way as others—with the same guarantees of access to cars and other vehicles to allow them to complete their journeys.
Extracting concessions from the Government on the Bill has sometimes been a slow and tortuous process, but the day on which all public transport is truly accessible will make that process well worth the effort.

Mr. Norris: Lest I was in any doubt about what "windage up high" actually means, I fear that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has given me an ideal illustration in his extraordinary peroration—including an uncharacteristic and appalling slur on my personal reputation among taxi drivers. He should know that my reputation depends entirely on the part of the country that people visit.
When I attended my party's magnificent conference in Blackpool, the first taxi I entered carried a sign facing the passenger seat, reading "Steve Norris must go". I did not like to say that I had already gone; I relied on the fact that junior Ministers are so obscure that there is not the slightest chance of their being recognised by any taxi driver outside the metropolis, and executed a delicate withdrawal.
My reputation has, in fact, recently received a boost here in the capital. It is true to say that because I—alone among Transport Ministers of any party over generations—have insisted on wheelchair accessibility and on redefining the taxi as a modern vehicle capable of taking disabled people, and have never been prepared to compromise that principle, I would not necessarily come top in a poll among taxi drivers to elect the bloke of the month. They have all had the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in the back of the cab, but, sadly, an increasing number have also had the pleasure of my own company, and I cannot say that I was able to convince all of them of the rightness of my views.
That, however, was before the arrival of the entirely unlamented hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who for a period—a sadly brief period, from my point of view—was the Opposition's transport spokesman.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose—

Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my story, because it is very important, and illustrates why the Government are resisting the Opposition amendment and have tabled their own.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West—who knows nothing about taxis—produced a "position paper" on the subject, which he unwisely read only to a couple of his friends in the Transport and General Workers Union—

Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is making a good-natured response, but may I ask him whether he informed my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that he would refer to him?

Mr. Norris: I certainly did not, because I had not seen the unwarranted attack on my reputation of which the

hon. Member for Monklands, West gave me no notice. If he is not to rely on spurious points of order to interrupt my speech, let me just say this. The relevance of—

Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it is a point of order?

Mr. Clarke: I think that it relates to an important principle in the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will confirm that. However light-hearted our exchanges, if an hon. Member wishes to refer to another, he should do that hon. Member the courtesy of giving him notice. That has not been done, and I am sure that you deplore it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The reference to giving notice operates where a Member intends to make some kind of attack or disparaging remark, within parliamentary rules, about another hon. Member. I am not yet persuaded that it is of that order, but I await to hear whether it is.

Mr. Norris: I acquit myself of the charge of dishonour in respect of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who produced a position paper on taxis. It was so ludicrous that, far from wishing to attack him, I volunteered to send copies of it to every taxi driver in London. Such was its reception that the headline in the taxi press the following week was, "Come back Norris, all is forgiven." I put that on the record to show that I take no lessons from Opposition Members on how to regulate the taxi industry. Without any political division, the House is prepared to accept that we at least know what we are talking about.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am glad that the Minister retains his good nature despite his unpopularity among taxi drivers, which is increasing from the north to the south. To give evidence of that I should be glad to go tonight with the Minister to Peckham—as long as he pays the fare and takes the judgment that he perceives. I accept that the Minister has been through a rough time. No politician would suggest that we have not all had that experience but he is being a bit ungrateful to the star, if the press is right, of the Conservative party conference—the Secretary of State for Defence—who claimed that it was he who introduced disability provisions for London taxis.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Am I right in thinking that this is an intervention?

Mr. Clarke: It is.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is so long that I am beginning to wonder.

Mr. Norris: My bona fides in this matter require no further underlining. The most cynical group of individuals known to man—the 22,000 members of the London licensed taxi trade—are a shrewd judge in these matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) knows only too well, they tend to speak their mind, and, my goodness, they spoke it on that occasion.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to describe all London's taxi drivers as cynical?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Norris: It is pretty true, in my experience. I think that the number of taxi drivers in my constituency is


second only to the number in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North. Many of them are personal friends, and have remained so because they recognise that at least I know one end of a taxi from the other. The hon. Member for Oldham, West clearly did not, but there is hope for any sinner that repenteth on these matters. I am delighted to debate the amendments.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On the matter of the unsolved mystery of the Government's massive conversion, their spectacular change of attitude, am I right in suspecting that that very distinguished official who is respected in all parts of the House, Anne Frye, might have played some part in the change? I suspect that the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) may share my view that perhaps she is involved somewhere.

Mr. Norris: It is gracious of the right hon. Gentleman to refer to Miss Frye, who is a distinguished official in my Department and who has been recognised for her sterling work on behalf of disabled people in every field of the transport industry. Her whole team is marvellous.
I shall now reply to the substance of the speech by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). We started from the proposition that access for the disabled to all forms of transport is wholly desirable, but that what is required to be injected into any legislative programme to require such access is reasonableness as to the speed and extent with which it can be delivered. In the context of taxis, the proposition is relatively straightforward, because by their nature taxis will come to the end of their useful life.
In London, there is a programme for requiring full accessibility, and it will be completed by 31 December 1999. That means that, on 1 January 2000, the whole of London's taxi fleet will be wheelchair-accessible, and the same will be true of taxis in increasing numbers of local authorities.
7.15 pm
Provided that sufficient notice is given to the owner of a vehicle that may not comply to allow him to amortise the useful life of his vehicle and not suffer any unreasonable financial burden as a result, the principle of him ensuring that thereafter he acquires an accessible vehicle is entirely reasonable.
In another place, the noble Lord Gladwin of Clee brought to our attention an issue that I was immediately prepared to acknowledge had some real merits. I shall refer shortly to those merits, but I should first like to refer to the reasons why we cannot accept the Opposition amendment and why the words that we have employed are more helpful. Some doubts about the Opposition amendment are technical. For example, it authorises the owner of a transport facility to do things that he is already entitled to do. However, this is not an occasion for nit-picking.
Our chief worry is about the main thrust of the amendment, which would let taxis in general into a transport facility, rather than allow the owner of that facility to make an exclusive contract with a taxi or private car hire firm. There is general recognition that that is the case at Gatwick airport because the airport authority has a specific contract with a particular company.
The purpose of the contract is clear. If no such contract exists, there is a risk that the local licensing authority could regulate fares only in its own area. Therefore, there

should be a proper contract between a company and the airport authority, under which the authority says to the contractor, "You will take passengers on a fixed scale to any destination that they want." As I have no doubt hon. Members will have seen at the airport, those prices are available for inspection.
If there is no such arrangement, there is a danger that some taxi drivers will exploit passengers who wish to travel outside the immediate licensing area, and charge much more than they are entitled to charge. The authorities at Gatwick recognised that in the airport's early days. Of course, the situation at that airport is very different from the one in London, which was specifically brought within the provisions of the Metropolitan police service area for London taxis.
The idea of a contract is good, and offers a genuine measure of protection to all taxi users, irrespective of whether they are disabled. On that basis, it would be unhelpful for the generality of taxi users if an authority was not able to enter into the arrangement that I have described. The amendment moved in the other place was similar to the Opposition amendment, and is certainly right in its spirit, because it seeks to ensure that the taxi service that is available at King's Cross station or any other major station is available to disabled people at airports and other such transport facilities.
The form of words that we have used essentially allows for that. It gives the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to ensure that, when accessibility requirements are in force for taxis generally, equivalent requirements can be imposed on vehicles used under a contract to provide hire car services, so that the Secretary of State is able to solve any of the problems as they arise.
This is not a massive principle, a huge reversal or U-turn. It is, however, a genuine acknowledgment that the point that has been made here, and the spirit behind the amendments, were sensible, and that our amendments will meet that point. I hope that, in that spirit, the hon. Member for Monklands, West will accept that the deficiency in the original amendment wording is sufficient to allow him to withdraw that and to move to support the Government amendment.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: First, may I declare an interest? I represent the London Taxi Drivers Association. That interest is registered in the Members' book upstairs.
It is to be welcomed that the Government have brought forward the amendment, which will ensure that wheelchair-accessible licensed taxis are guaranteed free access to transport termini—the very areas where those with disabilities are in most need of such vehicles. I wish to thank my hon. Friends who have shared my concerns that, without the amendment, owners of transport facilities could enter into exclusive contracts with minicab companies, thus excluding wheelchair-accessible licensed taxis from transport facilities. It is important that those people with those disabilities have proper access to the provision of transport in airports, railway stations and other such areas.
Many people do not realise that minicabs do not and cannot give that facility—that is of great importance. Such a position would have driven a coach and horses through the principle of the Bill, and undermined the commitment shown by the licensed taxi industry, to which the Minister


has referred, to ensure that, in due course and at considerable cost to itself, all licensed taxis will become wheelchair-accessible.
I would, however, prevail on the Minister to answer a number of points, in view of the fact that this was a late Government amendment, and it has been difficult to ask him to clarify one or two points. First, the new clause will apply only to transport facilities that are designated by the Secretary of State. Which transport facilities are likely to be designated, and on what basis will the choice be made?
Secondly, the new clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to impose the "taxi provisions" in the Bill concerning wheelchair access on the vehicles and drivers used to provide services under a franchise agreement. How will that work in practice, and what provisions are likely to be imposed? Thirdly, the term "hire car" has not been defined in the new clause, but is simply stated to have
such meaning as may be prescribed".
Why has the term not been defined, and what definition is likely to be prescribed?

Mr. Norris: In order not to detain the House, I think that it is better if I write to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) on those queries.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I found the Minister's reply unconvincing, but in the interests of progress, I look forward to a further discussion at the back of a taxi to Peckham, and I therefore will not press our amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment No. 50 and Government amendment (i) thereto agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 51 to 88 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 89, after clause 35, to insert the following new clause—Application to Parliament—
.—(1) This Act applies to an act done by or for purposes of the House of Lords or the House of Commons as it applies to an act done by a private person.
(2) For the purposes of the application of Part II in relation to the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House shall be treated as the employer of a person who is (or would be) a relevant member of the House of Commons staff for the purposes of section 188 of the Employment Rights Act 1995.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4), for the purposes of the application of sections 12 to 15, the provider of services is—

(a) as respects the House of Lords, the Corporate Officer of that House; and
(b) as respects the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House.

(4) Where the service in question is access to and use of any place in the Palace of Westminster which members of the public are permitted to enter, the Corporate Officers of both Houses jointly are the provider of that service.
(5) Nothing in any rule of law or the law or practice of Parliament prevents proceedings being instituted before an industrial tribunal under Part II or before any court under Part III.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Burt.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may consider Government amendment to the Lords amendment, (a), in line 8, leave out

'188 of the Employment Rights Act 1995'
and insert
'139 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978'.

Mr. Tom Clarke: At the recent lobbies to the House, many disabled people and organisations of disabled people were concerned—and it was a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—that they did not have adequate access facilities, and even when they attempted to have a discussion in Westminster Hall, they were not allowed facilities for loudspeaker equipment.
I know that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is concerned to correct that position, but it might be helpful if he confirmed to the House that discussions to improve all this is continuing.

Mr. Burt: I am happy to respond. I share the concern that was raised at the time of the lobby. Discussions are going on to deal with that with the House authorities and with the Serjeant at Arms' office. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the written answer that appeared in Hansard on Tuesday 24 October, which was in response to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), and which gave details of the latest substantial alterations that have been completed to the palace of Westminster in favour of disabled people.
On the problem of microphones in Westminster Hall, I have not yet had an answer on that issue, but it is a live one. I know that discussions continue, and we are all anticipating future lobbies to see how that problem can be dealt with.

Mr. Clarke: With the leave of the House, I thank the Minister for that helpful statement. I know that he will have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who spoke on this issue a few weeks ago, and who shares the Minister's and the House's concern.

Lords amendment No. 89 and Government atnendment (a) agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 90 to 111 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 112 to 127 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 128, after schedule 2, to insert the following new schedule—( "Schedule 2A—

PREMISES OCCUPIED UNDER LEASES

PART I

OCCUPATION BY EMPLOYER OR TRADE ORGANISATION

Failure to obtain consent to alteration

1. If any question arises as to whether the occupier has failed to comply with the section 6 or section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty, by failing to make a particular alteration to the premises, any constraint attributable to the fact that he occupies the premises under a lease is to be ignored unless he has applied to the lessor in writing for consent to the making of the alteration.

Joining lessors in proceedings under section 8

2.—(I) In any proceedings under section 8, in a case to which section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) applies, the complainant or the occupier may ask the tribunal hearing the complaint to direct that the lessor be joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings.

(2) The request shall be granted if it is made before the hearing of the complaint begins.

(3) The tribunal may refuse the request if it is made after the hearing of the complaint begins.

(4) The request may not be granted if it is made after the tribunal has determined the complaint.

(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings and the tribunal finds that—

(a) the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or
(ii) has consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable,
it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

(6) A declaration or order under sub-paragraph (5) may be made in substitution for, or in addition to, any steps taken by the tribunal under section 8(2).

(7) If the tribunal orders the lessor to pay compensation it may not make an order under section 8(2) ordering the occupier to do so.

Regulations

3. Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which—

(a) a lessor is to be taken, for the purposes of section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) and this Part of this Schedule to have—

(i) withheld his consent;
(ii) withheld his consent unreasonably;
(iii) acted reasonably in withholding his consent;
(b) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be reasonable;
(c) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be unreasonable.

Sub-leases etc.

4. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing, or modifying, the provision made by section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) or any provision made by or under this Part of this Schedule in relation to cases where the occupier occupies premises under a sub-lease or sub-tenancy.

PART II

OCCUPATION BY PROVIDERS OF SERVICES

Failure to obtain consent to alteration

5. If any question arises as to whether the occupier has failed to comply with the section 15 duty, by failing to make a particular alteration to premises, any constraint attributable to the fact that he occupies the premises under a lease is to be ignored unless he has applied to the lessor in writing for consent to the making of the alteration.

Reference to court

6.—(1) If the occupier has applied in writing to the lessor for consent to the alteration and—

(a) that consent has been refused, or
(b) the lessor has made his consent subject to one or more conditions,
the occupier or a disabled person who has an interest in the proposed alteration to the premises being made, may refer the matter to a county court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff.

(2) In the following provisions of this Schedule "court" includes "sheriff'.

(3) On such a reference the court shall determine whether the lessor's refusal was unreasonable or (as the case may be) whether the condition is, or any of the conditions are, unreasonable.

(4) If the court determines that the lessor's refusal was unreasonable it may make a declaration to the effect that if the lessor were to give his consent subject to such condition or conditions as may be specified in the declaration he would be acting reasonably.

Joining lessors in proceedings under section 20

7.—(1) In any proceedings on a claim under section 20, in a case to which this Part of this Schedule applies, the plaintiff, the pursuer or the occupier concerned may ask the court to direct that the lessor be joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings.

(2) The request shall be granted if it is made before the hearing of the claim begins.

(3) The court may refuse the request if it is made after the hearing of the claim begins.

(4) The request may not be granted if it is made after the court has determined the claim.

(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings and the court finds that—

(a) the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or
(ii) has consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable,
it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

(6) If the court orders the lessor to pay compensation it may not order the occupier to do so.

Regulations

8. Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which—

(a) a lessor is to be taken, for the purposes of section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) and this Part of this Schedule to have—

(i) withheld his consent;
(ii) withheld his consent unreasonably;
(iii) acted reasonably in withholding his consent;

(b) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be reasonable;
(c) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be unreasonable.

Sub-leases etc.

9. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing, or modifying, the provision made by section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) or any provision made by or under this Part of this Schedule in relation to cases where the occupier occupies premises under a sub-lease or sub-tenancy.")

Amendments made to the proposed Lords amendment: (a), in paragraph 2, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) and insert—
'(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings, the tribunal may determine—

(a) whether the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or
(ii) consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) if so, whether the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable.
(5A) If, under sub-paragraph (5), the tribunal determines that the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable it may take one or more of the following steps—

(a) make such declaration as it considers appropriate;
(b) make an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order;
(c) order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

(5B) An order under sub-paragraph (5A)(b) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.


(6) Any step taken by the tribunal under sub-paragraph (5A) may be in substitution for, or in addition to, any step taken by the tribunal under section 8(2).'.
(b), in paragraph 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
'(4) If the court determines—

(a) that the lessor's refusal was unreasonable; or
(b) that the condition is, or any of the conditions are, unreasonable,
it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order.
(4A) An order under sub-paragraph (4) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.'.
(c), in pararaph 7, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
'(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings, the court may determine—

(a) whether the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or
(ii) consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) if so, whether the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable.
(5A) If, under sub-paragraph (5), the court determines that the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable it may take one or more of the following steps—

(a) make such declaration as it considers appropriate;
(b) make an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order;
(c) order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

(5B) An order under sub-paragraph (5A)(b) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Burt.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 129 to 139 agreed to.

Schedule 6

MODIFICATIONS OF THIS ACT IN ITS APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords amendment: No. 140, in page 36, line 45, at end insert—
(". In section 13(6A)(b) for "Part VII of the Mental Health Act 1983" substitute "Part VIII of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986".")

Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment:(a), leave out from '(6A)' to end, and insert
'for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute "; or

(b) functions conferred by or under Part VIII of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 are exercisable in relation to a disabled person's property or affairs.".'.—[Mr. Burt.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 141, in page 37, line 9, at end insert—
("12A. Omit sections (Education of disabled persons), (Further and higher education of disabled persons) and (Further and higher education of disabled persons: Scotland).
12B.—(1) In section (Taxi accessibility regulations)(1) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Taxi accessibility regulations)(5) for the definition of "taxi" substitute—

""taxi" means a vehicle which—

(a) is licensed under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to stand or ply for hire; and

(b) seats not more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver."

12C. For section (New licences conditional on compliance with taxi accessibility regulations) substitute—

New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations.

.—(1) The Department of the Environment shall not grant a public service vehicle licence under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 for a taxi unless the vehicle conforms with those provisions of the taxi accessibility regulations with which it will be required to conform if licensed.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if such a licence was in force with respect to the vehicle at any time during the period of 28 days immediately before the day on which the licence is granted.

(3) The Department of the Environment may by order provide for subsection (2) to cease to have effect on such date as may be specified in the order.".

12D. Omit section (Exemption from taxi accessibility regulations).

12E. In section (Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs)(7) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".

12F.—(1) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs)(5) and (6) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs)(9) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".

12G. Omit section (Requirements as to disabled passengers in Scotland).

12H.—(1) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(1) for "a licensing authority" substitute "the Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(2) for "licensing authority concerned" substitute "Department of the Environment".

(3) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(3) for the words from "the magistrates' court" to the end substitute "a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessions district in which the aggrieved person resides."

12I.—(1) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (PSV accessibility regulations)(5) for the definition of "public service vehicle" substitute—

""public service vehicle" means a vehicle which—

(a) seats more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver; and
(b) is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;".

(3) In section (PSV accessibility regulations)(7) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".

12J.—(1) In section (Accessibility certificates)(2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Accessibility certificates) for subsections (3) and (4) substitute—
(3) Any person who uses a regulated public service vehicle in contravention of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".

12K.—(1) In section (Approval certificates) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Approval certificates)(1) for "he" substitute "it".

(3) In section (Approval certificates)(6) for "his" substitute "its".

12L. In section (Special authorisations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

12M.—(1) In section (Reviews and appeals) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Reviews and appeals)(2) for "him" substitute "it".

(3) In section (Reviews and appeals)(6) for "he" substitute "it" and for "his" substitute "its".

12N.—(1) In section (Fees) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Fees)(2) for "him" substitute "it" and at the end add "of Northern Ireland".

(3) In section (Fees)(4) for "he" substitute "it".

12P.—(1) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(6) in the definition of "rail vehicle" for the words "on any railway, tramway or prescribed system" substitute "by rail".

(3) Omit section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(7).

(4) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(11) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".

12Q.—(1) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(3) for the words "the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he" substitute "such persons as it" and for "he" substitute "it".

12R. Omit section (Offences by bodies corporate etc.)(3).")

Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), after subsection (2) insert—
'(2A) In section (Designated transport facilities) for "Secretary of State", wherever it occurs, substitute "Department of the Environment".'—[Mr. Burt.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 142 to 170 agreed to.

Clause 12

DISCRIMINATION IN RELATION TO GOODS, FACJLITIES AND SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 9, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this Part, references to a service provider who discriminates against a disabled person shall include references to a service provider who—

(a) treats a person who has a physical or mental impairment that does not have a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities, as having a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities;
(b) treats a person who does not have a physical or mental impairment as having a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Burt.]

Mr. Tom Clarke: Of all our discussions today, this is easily the most serious. Many thousands of people outwith this place will attach their concern about parliamentary democracy to the manner in which we respond to the clear decision in another place. The amendment was carried in another place in the face of opposition from the

Government Front Bench, and it is a matter for regret, but not for surprise, that Ministers are not prepared to accept the verdict of the other place.
The Lords amendment is yet another challenge to the inadequate scope and coverage of the Bill. Ministers were forced to concede that the Bill should protect those with a history of disability and those likely to be disabled in future, and they suffered defeat in the Lords because of their refusal to extend protection to those with an ill-founded reputation for disability.
The effect of the Lords amendment is to outlaw discrimination against those wrongly perceived by providers of goods and services to be disabled. If we accepted the Government's original proposals, to which they now wish to return, a service provider alleged to have discriminated would win a court case if it could be shown that the victim of the discrimination was not actually disabled, or had a disability that did not meet the narrow definition in the Bill.
The perverse effect of that would be that well-founded discrimination based on prejudice would be unlawful, but ill-founded discrimination based on ignorance and prejudice would remain lawful. For example, if a restaurant owner refused to serve a customer whom he believed to be epileptic and the customer really was epileptic, the customer would have a case against him. But if the customer were not epileptic but suffered from a lesser form of ailment not covered by the Bill, the discrimination would be perfectly acceptable and within the law, and the customer would have no right to redress whatever. That is wholly unacceptable.
The Lords amendment lays down that that the problem is the discrimination itself, not the precise degree of disability. To discriminate on the grounds of disability is wrong whether the perception of disability is well founded or not, just as would be the case with any other sort of discrimination. To ban a customer because he was Scottish would be unlawful, even if he was not a Scot at all. The same logic should apply to discrimination on grounds of disability.
The Lords amendment would achieve that, with the support not only of their Lordships' House but of every organisation I know of and for disabled people, and that of every disabled person whom I have ever met, including some people who have been discriminated against because they merely have a reputation, or whose history is perceived by others as being covered by the word "disability".
Ministers may argue that the amendment would lead to inconsistency, because perceived disability is not covered in the part of the Bill dealing with employment. However, that would be the least of the inconsistencies in the Bill. Its overall structure draws a false and unnecessary dividing line between employment and other spheres.
The Opposition have been the most persistent critics of that divide, and our criticism remains. Government amendments to the employment parts of the Bill no longer allow an employer's subjective opinion as a ground for less favourable treatment. We welcome that change, but Ministers saw fit to leave the subjective opinion of a service provider as grounds for less favourable treatment.
It is a result of the Government's approach, not of ours, that objective criteria must be satisfied for an employer to treat a disabled person unfavourably, but that no such principle applies to service providers. Clearly that is


repugnant. If subjective opinion can be a ground for less favourable treatment in the provision of goods and services, but not in employment, it would make as much sense for the Bill to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of subjective opinion in employment but not in the provision of goods and services.
It is unsatisfactory that the two areas of employment and the provision of goods and services should be so needlessly kept apart in the Bill, despite all the evidence, all the representations and all the arguments. However, the blame for that lies firmly with Ministers, and not with other parties or with the Lords amendment.
Ministers have argued that there cannot be protection for people perceived to be disabled without the Bill's becoming open-ended. The Government argued that only those who meet the criteria of disability should be protected by the Bill, but they can no longer advance that argument as they have conceded that those with a history of disability should be protected, even if they do not necessarily meet the narrow definition of actual or current disability.
The Bill should address the problem of discrimination on the grounds of disability. We should shift the onus of proof from the alleged victim of discrimination to the alleged perpetrator. It should not be up to the victim to prove that he or she is disabled, and therefore protected by law. The onus should be on the service provider not to discriminate on the grounds of disability, which is why we believe that the amendment should be passed.
The Minister said that the Opposition's attitude was "gung-ho". I took the opportunity during a Division to look up in a dictionary that the House would find acceptable the definition of "gung-ho". I found that the United States marines used that expression during the second world war to indicate that they were "enthusiastic, eager, zealous". When the House refuses to emulate that approach to put right that which is wrong, we will no longer be serving the democratic rights of our people, or the rights and needs of 6.5 million of our fellow citizens.

Ms Lynne: I shall be brief, as I know that many hon. Members want to speak.
Lords amendment No. 30 proposes to outlaw discrimination based on ignorance and prejudice: I believe that most discrimination is based on ignorance and prejudice. It aims to prevent a provider of goods or services from acting in a discriminatory manner just because someone is perceived to have a disability.
We debated this issue in Committee, and I am glad that the Government have moved slightly on the history of disability. I am saddened, however, that they have not moved on the reputation of disability. I hope that they will agree with the Lords amendment. In many instances, people who have no disability, but who have a reputation of disability, are perceived to have such a disability—for example, those who are perceived to have mental health problems or HIV.
Are we saying that it is justifiable to discriminate on a perception that somebody has a mental illness? Is it justifiable to be prejudiced against someone who is believed to be HIV positive? If the House does not pass the Lords amendment, that is exactly what it will say. Discrimination is based on ignorance and prejudice, and we must take that on board when we consider the amendment.
At long last, disabled people are to be protected in law to a certain extent. I say "to a certain extent", because, without a commission to enforce the rights of disabled people, the Bill will not give disabled people what they need. People who are perceived to have a disability—even if they do not have that disability—will not be protected, and that is not fair and does not make sense. The amendment is vital, and the Government must not oppose it. It will give a clear message that any discrimination relating to disability is wrong, whether it is related to an actual disability or a perceived disability.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad to have the opportunity to make a brief intervention in the debate.
In rejecting the Lords amendment, the Government will leave a massive loophole in the Bill, and I wish to address my remarks to that matter. Under the Bill, a person providing a service may discriminate against a disabled person on the basis not of that disability but of a belief that the disabled person has more severe disabilities.
If we do not agree the Lords amendment, we will give any provider of goods or services a defence against an accusation of discrimination against a disabled person on the basis of an acknowledged disability. The provider alleged to have discriminated will be able to say that he or she did so on the basis of not an acknowledged disability but a perception of a far-reaching disability. That will be a watertight defence in any action, and the provision intended by this part of the Bill will be flawed. The Government have not thought this matter through, and the Lords amendment should be agreed.

Mr. Barnes: There are two main distinctions between the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and the Disability Discrimination Bill. One is the lack of an enforcement agency, which is not proposed in the amendment, and the other is the scope of its application. Who does the Disability Discrimination Bill apply to?
We have always made it clear that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill applied to anyone who was disabled or who was perceived to have a disability—at least 10 per cent. of the population. We do not know how many people are covered by the Disability Discrimination Bill. The Bill's details of definition are hedged with all sorts of medical provisions and a host of exemptions; considerable powers over those exemptions are placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. The amendment gives us a chance to extend the areas of definition within that limited scope, and therefore to extend the Bill's areas of application. The Lords amendment would ensure that the discriminator could not use the argument that the person discriminated against had a perceived disability.
The Lords amendment still does not make the Bill fully acceptable to the civil rights movement, but it is important. If it is passed, we will be in a better position to amend the legislation or to introduce a measure based on the principles of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. All hon. Members who have supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in this House should be in the Lobby to defend this Lords amendment.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Anybody who doubts the existence and extent of prejudice within our society against minorities, including disabled people, need consider only the performance of the tabloids in recent


weeks in their commentary on the distribution of funds from the National Lottery Charities Board. There were outpourings of venom against minorities, based—as much as anything—on ignorance. Again and again we find that ignorance is at the root of prejudice, and we must act to deal with the unacceptable consequences of such ignorance and confusion.
The Bill aims to remedy one of a range of injustices: discrimination against someone who has an actual impairment of long-term and substantial impact. But if the Government win the vote and Lords amendment No. 30 is not passed, we will fail to address another range of injustices that occurs when someone with a minor disability—or no disability at all—experiences discrimination as though he or she did have a substantial disability. When that occurs it is just as damaging and objectionable.
If the Government vote against the Lords amendment, the less disabled one is, the more one can be discriminated against. That is the most astonishing policy for the Government to adopt. It puzzles me that they should intend it to be within the law to discriminate on the basis of imaginary disability.
The Minister promised that guidance will be issued, and that will, no doubt, be helpful to a degree, but the principle needs to be solidly established in the legislation.
At the heart of the problem is the Government's conception of the nature of disability. They insist on the medical model, hence their insistence on the definition of disability in the Bill as being its fulcrum. That insistence is misguided even on the Government's terms because the definitions have failed to be definitive and are woolly. The phrases, "long-term and substantial impact" and "normal day-to-day activities" are susceptible to infinite debate and argument. What does it mean to talk of a
clinically well-recognised medical condition"?
The truth of the matter is that the definitions that the Government have offered will be a challenge to litigation and a paradise for lawyers. They should have sought universally to establish the principle that it is unacceptable to discriminate on grounds of disability and allowed sensible exemptions on the basis of reasonableness.
The Government should take as their conception the social model. After all, one cannot legislate against impairment, which arises as a fact of life out of natural or accidental causes, but one can and must legislate to constrain anti-social behaviour and to improve social behaviour in all the areas relevant to disability.
The measure is called the Disability Discrimination Bill and it is designed to prevent discrimination. It is discrimination itself that disables and further impairs those who are unfortunate enough to be impaired already and to be the victims of discrimination. It impairs not only those individuals but all of us, because, to the extent to which discrimination on grounds of disability may still be licensed within our society, so we shall tend the more to have a society characterised by aggression, harshness, guilt, distrust, fear and injustice. It follows from that analysis that the evil against which we are legislating is discrimination itself, whether based on an objectively ascertained reality or a mistaken perception.
It seems particularly strange that the Government are unwilling to accept the Lords amendment, given their acceptance earlier that it should not be lawful to discriminate against someone who has a history of

disability but is no longer disabled. In accepting that principle they have gone a significant way towards acknowledging that they must act to deal with mistaken perception. I cannot understand how they can leave that task uncompleted and be willing to accept that discrimination on grounds of disability should still be permissible under certain circumstances and how, if they are to allow people to be stigmatised and disadvantaged in such a way, they can claim to be the Government of a party committed to one nation.
The Government should, indeed, have tabled an amendment to the Lords amendment to ensure that it covered employment as well as the provision of goods and services.
The Government put forward considerations of expediency. They are concerned about costs, but there is no need to fear the costs given the principle of reasonableness that permeates the legislation. Nor need the Government fear that service providers are going to spend disproportionate amounts of time poring over the small print in part III of the Bill. That simply is not the way in which life works. Civil servants study the small print of legislation, as do lawyers and a few Members of Parliament, but employers and providers of goods and services do not, so the Government need not fear that either.
Nor need the Government fear that, if they accept the amendment, it would lead to great quantities of litigation. They must recognise that it will always be hard for the victim of such discrimination to prove their point about the motives of people who discriminated. What matters is that the declaration of principle should be enshrined in the Bill. The principle should be paramount.
Sadly, I must ask one last question of the Minister. At the meeting that he was kind enough to hold with the all-party disablement group last week, I asked whether he would be willing to accept as a fallback position that the Government should take powers to introduce the substance of this amendment in secondary legislation. I would greatly prefer that it should be clearly established in the primary legislation, which would be the right principle, but surely it would at least be a prudent precaution to take a reserve power to implement the substance of the Lords amendment in secondary legislation if experience should prove it to be necessary. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the possibility of the Government taking such a power is provided for and, if not, why will they not take it?

Mr. Berry: In opposing the Lords amendment, the Government are placing themselves in a ridiculous position. After many years, they have been convinced that discrimination is wrong if a service provider discriminates against someone whose impairment falls within their definition, but they seem to think it acceptable if a provider discriminates against someone in the belief that he or she has an impairment that falls within the definition and has made a secret of the fact.
One cannot discriminate against someone who has epilepsy, but one can discriminate if one believes that they have it. One cannot discriminate against someone with mental illness, but one can do so against someone who is believed to have it. One cannot discriminate against someone who has a serious hearing impairment, but I guess that the Bill will allow one to discriminate against someone who uses a hearing aid. Plainly, that is a nonsense.
If the Government are concerned because they feel that there will be litigation, may I point out that someone who wishes to complain under this part of the Bill will do so only if their complaint can stand up in court? If someone can prove that they have suffered discrimination because of their perceived disability, surely they should have the right to justice.
The Government should listen to what the Law Society and members of the Bow Group have to say and should support the Lords amendment and say that they really believe that discrimination is worth abolishing.

Mr. Burt: Let us try to settle this matter in context and to explain why things are not quite as they have been portrayed. The amendment extends the coverage of part III of the Bill to people who are treated by service providers as though they have a disability.
Last week, I had an opportunity to discuss the amendment with a delegation from the all-party disablement group, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), who, as always, has done sterling work throughout the passage of the Bill on behalf of disabled people. He was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who is also present, and the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), both of whom have spoken
I am grateful to them for explaining the ostensible purpose of the amendment. I do not doubt their sincerity. Indeed, I have much sympathy with their concern that people who are not disabled but have minor impairments might he treated unfairly. Extending the definition as they propose, however, would create a number of problems, which would seriously undermine the operation of the Bill. Not only would it lead to confusion, but its provisions would be unworkable.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon mentioned principle, but to establish a point of principle that cannot then be enforced is, to my mind, to take a dangerous step. The whole point of the Bill—and why it is important—is that the principles that it enshrines can be delivered. I am not prepared to allow the base of the Bill to be undermined by taking a step that might sound right but which will not deliver the goods and will provide only an opportunity for the unwary to fall into traps. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.
The amendment is a development of others discussed at earlier stages of the Bill. The exact terminology has changed; it is now framed in terms of treating someone as disabled instead of as perceiving someone as disabled, but its intention remains the same.
During its passage, the Government have emphasised that the Disability Discrimination Bill is concerned solely with discrimination against people who are, or have been, disabled. It cannot provide the solution for all those who may possibly face discrimination. It is not a general anti-discrimination Bill. The definition that the Bill uses is clear. The people covered are those who have, or have had, a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. We are talking about people who are disabled in common-sense terms.
Any attempt to introduce provisions to widen the Bill's scope to include people who are merely thought to be, or are treated as, disabled would damage the Bill and

dramatically reduce its effectiveness. I fear that a change of that nature would lead to a good deal of spurious and vexatious litigation. It would—this is the crucial point—be extremely difficult to establish legally what was in the mind of a service provider accused of having perceived someone as having disability or to prove that someone had been treated as if they were disabled.
8 pm
Perception is necessarily the response of an individual person. In my view, it is simply not possible to base important legal issues on such uncertainty. What evidence can be produced to answer the statement, "I have no such perception"? We cannot look inside a person's mind in that way, still less provide for legal disputes on the point. The concept of perception is irredeemably flawed in that context. The attempt to move away from perception to treatment does little to remove the potential for confusion. We spent much time and trouble getting the definition right. It would be bizarre if we were now to allow those who did not meet that definition to benefit from the protection afforded by part III through the loophole that the amendment would create.
We have heard no argument advanced by the Opposition about the burden on the service providers, upon whom the successful implementation of the Bill depends. The great advance of the Bill is in the requirement on service providers to change policies and practices, provide auxiliary aids and remove physical barriers, where reasonable. Failure to make such changes could amount to unlawful discrimination. The concept of reasonable adjustment that that implies—taking practical steps to make jobs and services accessible—is crucial to the Bill. It is right to require those adjustments but the case for that duty is based on two key arguments: first, that it is right to ask society to make changes to help those with a substantial disability; secondly, that the extent and nature of the changes required can be predicted because only those with a substantial disability are covered.
If the Bill covered non-disabled people and those with minor conditions, it would result in an unacceptable degree of uncertainty on the part of the service provider, who would never know for certain whether the person in front of him or her was someone for whom some form of adjustment was necessary. Of course, service providers would not have to make adjustments on a major scale for those who are not disabled or who have only minor disabilities. However, they would have to consider the full range of duties, including changing policies and practice that made access unreasonably difficult, to ensure that they were operating within the law. That would create a considerable burden for small business trying to come to terms with its duties under the Bill.
There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the degree of disability covered by the Bill's definitions. I am seeking to be reassuring. People think that substantial disability means severe disability. That is wrong. The word "substantial" is used in the definition to indicate an effect more than minor. As a result, many disabled people who may think that the Bill does not cover them will find that they enjoy its protection. That will become clearer once we have published guidance on the matter.
The amendment will be resisted because the Bill as now drafted fulfils not only the aims of the House but those of the wider public. For the first time, it will be unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person in access to


employment, goods, services and facilities. A National Disability Council will advise the Government and assist us in drawing up the regulations needed to put the Bill into practice, and because a workable and coherent definition of disability is in the Bill, we can proceed with confidence, recognising the interests of those who supply employment, goods and facilities, as well as the aspirations of disabled people. Without such a constructive relationship, the further change that we seek in society's attitudes towards disabled people is made more difficult.
The Bill is therefore a fundamental advance for disabled people put forward by a Conservative Government, like so much other excellent legislation for supporting disabled people. It is easily as significant as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was passed, as the House well knows, after a substantial climbdown by the then Labour Government, which had originally decided not to take the measure forward. I therefore ask the House to support the Bill and reject the amendment.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I have no doubt that those who listened to our debate, and especially to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and of other hon. Members from all the Opposition parties, will remain completely unconvinced by the argument that the Minister has advanced. If the Government are supported in the Lobby tonight, let it be remembered that those who do so will make an absolute mockery of the speech made at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool by the Secretary of State for Social Security.
The Bill is a betrayal of disabled people, and those who are perceived or considered to be disabled. The Government have had the opportunity, by embracing the wisdom and decision of another place, to put the matter right. They are culpable because of that. They have considered the matter. Let no one therefore doubt that nothing that the Government propose is in the interests of those whose disability, or perceived disability, will be held against them as a result of the law introduced by the Government. On that basis, I invite the House to join us in the No Lobby, and to do so with pride and so oppose a position that will, in time, be reversed by the House.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 250.

Division No. 226]
[8.07 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bellingham, Henry


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Booth, Hartley


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baldry, Tony
Brandreth, Gyles


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bright, Sir Graham


Bates, Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Browning, Mrs Angela





Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hartley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, Sir David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fry, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, Sir David


Gallie, Phil
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gardiner, Sir George
Major, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Fit Hon Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Ftt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, Sir John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Moate, Sir Roger






Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stephen, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stern, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Streeter, Gary


Nonis, Steve
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sweeney, Walter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sykes, John


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thomason, Roy


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pickles, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tracey, Richard



Tredinnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trend, Michael


Rathbone, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Richards, Rod
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walden, George


Robatnan, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Whittingdale, John


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Willetts, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Speed, Sir Keith
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Sproat, Iain





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Paul


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bradley, Keith


Ainger, Nick
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle upon


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Tyne East)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Burden, Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Byers, Stephen


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, D N


Bayley, Hugh
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cann, Jamie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bell, Stuart
Church, Judith


Bennett, Andrew F
Clapham, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Blunkett, David
Clelland, David





Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Coffey, Ann
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Connarty, Michael
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville


Corston, Jean
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dafis, Cynog
Keen, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Davidson, Ian
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Denham, John
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Llwyd, Elfyn


Donohoe, Brian H
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dowd, Jim
McAllion, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Etherington, Bill
McCrea, The Reverend William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McKelvey, William


Fatchett, Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McLeish, Henry


Flynn, Paul
Maclennan, Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Don (Bath)
McWilliam, John


Foulkes, George
Madden, Max


Fraser, John
Maddock, Diana


Fyfe, Maria
Mahon, Alice


Galbraith, Sam
Mandelson, Peter


Gapes, Mike
Marek, Dr John


Garrett, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Michael


Gordon, Mildred
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Milburn, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Greaf Grimsby)


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanson, David
Moriey, Elliot


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Hoey, Kate
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Hara, Edward


Home Robertson, John
Olner, Bill


Hood, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Primarob, Dawn






Purchase, Ken
Stevenson, George


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Raynsford, Nick
Straw, Jack


Reid, Dr John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rendel, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'tryNW)
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Touhig, Don


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis


Rooker, Jeff
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wallace, James


Rowlands, Ted
Walley, Joan


Ruddock, Joan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N


Salmond, Alex
Welsh, Andrew


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Simpson, Alan
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Dr Tony


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Spellar, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. John Cummings.


Steinberg, Gerry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to amendment No. 30: Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Richard Ottaway; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

To withdraw immediately.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second Time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Sessional Order [19 December], That the Bill be not committed.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.

Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have no wish to hold up the House, but I have an important question about clause 18, in part II, entitled
Sporting events: control of alcohol etc".
It has been suggested that the sanction contained in the clause should not apply to sporting events
at which all the participants take part without financial or material reward".
I must remind the Minister of a recent cricket match in Glasgow where there was something of a stramash. It was suggested by a number of witnesses to that unholy incident that those involved were decidedly under the influence of alcohol.
I do not want to force a Division—I suspect that I would not be very popular if I did so—but, because of the increasing habit of drinking alcohol at amateur as well as professional events, the Minister should think again about clause 18(2).

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We are making certain inquiries into the recent boxing match and the disgraceful scenes of violence and intimidation that took place there. The hon. Gentleman will have read in the press today that the police have been making inquiries and have followed up on them.
We are investigating the matter, but the Bill is purely a consolidation measure. It does not change the law, but we are not ruling out further changes in the future depending on the results of our inquiries.

Mr. John McFall: May I concur with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)? As the Minister said, however, the Bill is merely a consolidation measure. The Bill is welcomed by the Opposition because it will make the law more manageable and accessible. I am also sure that it will be welcomed by public and professional bodies because of that. Although we could dispute individual aspects of the Bill, I do not think that this is the right forum for such a discussion. We welcome the consolidation measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Sessional Order [19 December], That the Bill be not committed.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On the whole the Opposition welcome the Bill, which is a consolidation measure. However, I must draw the Minister's attention to the serious concern felt at the failure of the Crown to use measures that could be taken under the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. I refer to section 33, which allows the employment of a commissioner in court cases involving the cross-examination of child witnesses. That means that a child can give evidence on commission. Many of us are concerned, however, that screens are being used instead of closed circuit television or the employment of a commissioner. Although I accept the Bill readily, the Government still have much to do to offer protection to child witnesses and other vulnerable witnesses in our Courts.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I too acknowledge that the Bill is likely to have a fairly swift passage tonight, but I wish to record some dissent with respect to part III, which refers to bail.
I understood that several significant changes would be introduced in the way in which bail would be applied from our courts. I believe that the Bill makes some amendment, but it certainly does not go as far as I was led to understand during the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill earlier this year.
I should therefore like an undertaking from my right hon. Friend the Minister that, perhaps in the not too distant future, bail in Scotland will once again be considered and perhaps some more stringent criteria applied.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): First, in response to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I am well aware of his great concern and efforts on behalf of children and the need to safeguard them. He

specifically mentioned evidence on commission, closed circuit television and the use of screens, and he obviously believes that children should be given more protection.
I will make inquiries about the up-to-date position. I will draw to the attention of the Lord Advocate the arguments that the hon. Gentleman made and ask for a full letter to be sent to him.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) I can say that the Bill merely consolidates existing law. I am well aware of his desire to tighten up on bail. We have severely tightened up on bail already. The Act will be reviewed in due course in the light of experience. No doubt we can return to it in future if there is a further need, just as we returned to the issue of knives when my hon. Friend so successfully piloted a Bill on to the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87

NON-AVAILABILITY OF JUDGE

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 87, page 63, line 43, leave out '(1)(c)' and insert '(1)(b)(ii) or (3)(b)'.
Clause 87 consolidates section 128 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 as amended by section 30 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995. The consolidation failed to reproduce the amendment made at subsection (3) of section 30 of the 1995 Act, which is consequential on the change made earlier in section 30.
The amendment is purely consolidation, and I am able to advise the House that Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, is content that it is pure consolidation, and will not change the character of the Bill. Without the amendment, the consolidation would be inaccurate.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 87, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 88 to 309 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 10 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be read a Second time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On clauses 2 and 3, many of us are deeply worried about what appear to be the over-lenient penalties imposed on people convicted in our High Court of the most serious and violent crimes against the person. I am not alone. I do not think that I am allowed to mention the name of the specific judge, but one High Court judge has been remarkably lenient in the way in which he has treated certain people convicted of horrific crimes.
Perhaps the Minister cannot do it with this Bill, but I hope that he and the Lord Advocate will issue guidelines to sheriffs and High Court judges concerning the need to inflict condign punishment, especially on those convicted of violent crimes against the person.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I support what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said. The feelings that he expressed are felt throughout the land. There are great anxieties about inconsistencies and perhaps there are great anxieties about those who judge the judges. Who are they? Should we perhaps consider that in future? I suggest that, given the example quoted by the hon. Gentleman, that should be the case.

Mr. John McFall: I wish to make a few comments to back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallic) said.
On clause 3, I wonder whether the Government have considered the issue of a sentencing commission. We have had inconsistencies in sentencing. In the summer months, one young person was sentenced to gaol for more than two years for stealing £5 from a football pools company

and the next day a young person was given a community service order for badly beating up a 78-year-old pensioner. That type of inconsistency cannot be allowed.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) wrote to me with regard to those cases, saying that he was writing to the Lord Advocate about the matter. The response that the hon. Member for Eastwood received from the Lord Advocate was insufficiently serious in view of the position. That gives the impression that, whether it be the judges or those in charge of the judges, as the hon. Member for Ayr said, a vacuum exists between them and the rest of the community.
We urge the Minister to consider that seriously. Perhaps eventually he will be really radical and decide that there should be a judicial committee to appoint judges, which would involve lay people as well, so that the committee can be seen to be acting in the interests of the entire community.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): First, with regard to guidelines, I will ask the Law Officer, the Lord Advocate, to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). We have made it clear that we want more honesty in sentencing, that we intend to consult in due course before legislation is considered and that we wish sentences to approximate more closely to what the court passes.
As hon. Members will appreciate, the judiciary is independent of the Government. Those matters will be borne in mind. As I mentioned, it is a consolidation measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Sessional Order [19 December], That the Bill be not committed.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
The Bill promotes the reform of statute law by the repeal, in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of enactments that are no longer of practical utility. The Bill, which proposes the repeal of 223 whole Acts or orders and the removal of redundant provisions from 259 others, represents the culmination of much careful and detailed research and consultation by the two Law Commissions.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing appreciation to the commissions and to the draftsmen for this Bill and for all the important work that they undertake in preparing consolidation Bills.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The Opposition are only too happy to join the Solicitor-General in thanking the Law Commission for its activities. This is a good time to consider the Law Commission and the importance of its role.
It is the House's responsibility to ensure that the logjam that has developed recently in relation to the Law Commission is cleared as quickly as possible. I had thought that the House would have an opportunity tonight to give effect to the important work that the Law Commission has sent to both Houses this Session. That was the hope of the Opposition and, I suspect, of many Conservative Members. Although we shall consider this Bill—one of several that we are to consider tonight—there is one other provision that we shall not consider today, although we had expected to.
When he introduced the Bill in the other place, the Lord Chancellor said that the Law Commission's functions consisted of
the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments, the reduction of the number of separate enactments and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 April 1995; Vol. 563, c. 581.]
Measures brought to us by the Law Commission have traditionally been given by this House the careful consideration which they merit, having undergone detailed and specific consideration and extensive consultation in the other place. We are then normally able to give them as detailed a consideration as they merit, but not as detailed a consideration as they would normally receive. That is the understood mechanism for dealing with Law Commission reports. I had thought that that was understood and appreciated on both sides of the House.
I have no doubt that those sitting on the Treasury Bench tonight and, indeed, those sitting immediately behind the Treasury Bench, appreciate only too well the importance of the Law Commission's work. Because of the value of the commission's work, its significance, and the care and detail that it applies to the consideration of measures before they reach the other place or this House, we are tonight happy to join Conservative Members in welcoming the Bill. I suspect that we shall also welcome other measures during the evening. It is to be hoped that we shall welcome at least one other piece of legislation before the House rises for the recess.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I follow the Solicitor-General in saying that tonight is one of the rare opportunities that the House has to pay tribute to the work of the Law Commission. I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) in saying that there is still a logjam of consolidation measures and of the work that the Law Commission seeks to put through this House for the benefit of ordinary citizens. We are not talking merely about arcane legal work—many of the Law Commission's recommendations have a direct impact on ordinary citizens. That factor is all too often overlooked.
I should like to pay a well deserved tribute to the Law Commission for the diligence and quality of the work that it produces on our behalf. As the Solicitor-General has already said, the Bill will repeal 223 whole Acts or orders and remove individual redundant provisions from 259 others. It adds to the 1,600 whole Acts that have already been repealed in response to Law Commission reports. There is clearly a vast undergrowth of law that puzzles the ordinary citizen, which gives gainful employment to many lawyers, and which should be cut for the benefit of all our citizens.
Like earlier reports, the Law Commission's 15th report on statute law revision provides a fascinating glimpse of the old days. I shall not trawl through all the repeals, but I was intrigued by an Act of 1694, in the sixth and seventh year of the reign of William and Mary. It is described as
An Act for rebuilding the town of Warwick and for determining differences touching houses burnt or demolished by reason of the late dreadful fire there.
Many other examples give little vignettes on the history of the time.
The Law Commission clearly deserves our sincere tributes in respect of the work that it has done. Paragraph 1.9 of its sixth programme of law reforms states:
the Commission exists to make the law simpler, fairer, more modern and cheaper to use.
Who could be against that laudable aim?
Between September 1989 and April 1995, Parliament received 30 consolidation Bills prepared by the draughtsmen at the commission. The commission has also been involved in the preparation of many other Bills, including two Statute Law (Revision) Bills. We are told that the next such Bill is unlikely to be ready before 1998. Given the quality of the Law Commission's work and its relevance and importance, will the Solicitor-General confirm whether financial constraints are preventing it from continuing its work? It is important to pay tribute to the quality of the Law Commission's work generally.
On 14 June this year, I was fortunate enough to attend the celebrations held at Inner Temple hall to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission. Mr. Justice Brooke, the commission chairman, reminded the gathering that, 15 months ago, he wrote in his introduction to the Law Commission's annual report:
The position is now serious. It is not of course cataclysmic. But history shows that a nation which neglects the ordinary care of its laws is neglecting something which is very important in its national well-being.


He went on to give six examples from unimplemented reports published between 1983 and 1985, which are a serious cause for concern. I shall not bore the House by setting out in extenso the six reports that Mr. Justice Brooke mentioned.

Mr. Boateng: There is no danger of my hon. Friend ever boring the House. I urge him to give us some examples from the reports. He need not set them out in extenso, but it would be helpful to have some examples of the sorts of report to which he correctly draws the House's attention.

Mr. Anderson: In response to those blandishments and invitations from my hon. Friend, I shall select three examples that I hope will prove to the House how the law impacts directly on the citizen and how the failure to implement law has an adverse effect on the rights of the citizen.
In 1987, a foreign bank obtained a judgment in London against an American bank for $300 million. The case bristled with difficult points of law, but the defendants simply could not afford to risk an appeal. Interest was running on the judgment at the English rate of 15 per cent. per year, whereas the United States rate was about 6 per cent. If the case had taken 18 months to reach the Court of Appeal, the difference in interest alone would have cost another $400,000. The Law Commission recommended reform in 1983, but the Bill only recently reached this place for the first time. One wonders how much more injustice occurred in the interval between the Law Commission's recommendation and the Bill's reaching the House.
My second example is perhaps more relevant to the ordinary citizen than to companies. Ronald and Hazel Rhone bought a cottage in Somerset in 1981. The roof of the house next door, from which it was divided, overhung their bedroom, but they had the benefit of a covenant from their neighbours stating that they and their successors in title would maintain the roof in wind and weather-tight condition. In the event, it was neglected and the cottage suffered as a result. The house had changed hands and, last year, the other place ruled that the couple could not enforce the covenant because such positive covenants do not run with the land.
In 1965, a committee chaired by Lord Wilberforce said that reform was needed urgently. In 1971, the Law Commission commented that the law in that area was
illogical, uncertain, incomplete and inflexible".
In 1984, the Law Commission formally recommended that positive covenants should be replaced by a system of land obligations, but nothing has been done. How many more citizens have suffered injustice since 1984 as a result of what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South described as the logjam in terms of the House dealing with important Law Commission reports?
The House will be pleased to learn that I shall limit myself to only one more example to illustrate my point. Three years ago, the other place castigated landlords who exercised their archaic legal right to re-enter premises without a court order. They called it a
dubious and dangerous method of determining a lease".
In 1985, the Law Commission reported that the law of forfeiture of tenancies was unnecessarily complicated and no longer coherent. The commission said that its complication added to the costs incurred by people who

were caught up in the working of the law. Since 1985 and that recommendation, the costs have grown even larger—to the detriment of the ordinary citizens involved. The law remains unchanged.
One could go on indefinitely giving examples of reports that remain unimplemented at great cost to the individual, but at great advantage to the lawyers who benefit. Parliament has chosen to ignore at least 30 other such reports. It is worse now because of the restrictions on legal aid that have resulted from the Government's cost-cutting measures. The funding for many law centres has been cut off or slashed, and legal costs have soared. That serves only to underline the case for making law as simple and as fair as possible.
In debates in 1965, when the Law Commission was established, a former Secretary of State for Scotland said that the amount of money spent by the ordinary citizen on lawyers to discover the nature of the present law was disgraceful. Those comments were made 30 years ago and the problem remains unsolved.
A great failing of the Law Commission is, perhaps, that it has lacked the skills of persuasion in respect of Parliament. It has failed to persuade Government and Parliament that something must be done, particularly in criminal law reform. As those who practise in criminal law know, it is crying out for consolidation and simplification. Mr. Justice Brooke told the celebratory gathering in July this year that he knows of 17 cases since he arrived at the commission in January 1993 in which the Court of Appeal has had to set aside convictions because the judge made a mistake when directing the jury on the law of self-defence. There have been 17 miscarriages of justice in this small area of criminal law alone, yet there is still no progress on it. I could go on giving examples, but I am sure that my point has been well understood.
There is a chink of light, however. At the same assembly in Inner Temple hall, Mr. Justice Brooke said that, had the event taken place two years before, it would have been not a celebration but a wake. That was because at last, in his judgment, Parliament appeared to have pushed the work of the Law Commission a little further up its agenda. Some of the frustrations at the logjam described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South have gone. Mr. Justice Brooke rejoiced—and we with him—that his appeal in the annual report of two years before had been heard, and that, between his appeal and the end of the Session, 14 Law Commission reports will have reached the statute book.
The Law Commission, as we know, is independent, based on an all-party consensus. By contrast, two strong Law Commissions, in Canada and the Australian state of Victoria, have been abolished by incoming Governments. There is no danger of that happening here.
When the Law Commissions Bill reached the other place in 1965, Lord Gardiner said that he regarded it as one of the most exciting things that a Government had ever done. Most of us would think that the Labour Government of 1964–70 probably did more exciting things than introducing that Bill. I am reminded of the definition of an actuary as someone who finds accountancy too exciting. Perhaps Lord Gardiner's definition of "exciting" was rather different from the person in the street's.
As the sixth programme of law reform clearly shows, the work of simplification, modernisation and codification continues. That work certainly impacts positively on the


ordinary citizen, but the constant refrain of the report is that everything will be done "resources permitting". I hope that the Government will respond positively to the Law Commission's case for staff continuity and will provide the resources to enable it to continue its most valuable work.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I too congratulate the Law Commission and its staff on their skilful work to produce this report. It is one of considerable detail and, therefore, it is fallible. I believe that it contains some errors. I tried to point them out to the Joint Committee of which I am a member. Despite what has been said by some of the legal brethren in the House, I do not think the system is especially good. I was clearly not welcome at the Joint Committee—

Mr. Donald Anderson: Troublemaker!

Mr. Mackinlay: I did not mean to be—

Mr. Anderson: I would never describe my hon. Friend as a troublemaker. I was suggesting that some less enlightened souls might consider him one.

Mr. Mackinlay: Anyway, I went along to do my duty by this House, in the belief that there was an error in one aspect of the report; but I could not escape the feeling that it was considered a cheek that someone who was not a lawyer should question the judgment of the Law Commission and of some noble and learned peers. I queried the definition of the statutes or parts of statutes that should be the subject of repeal: where the legislation is spent, obsolete, unnecessary or otherwise not now of practical utility.
I checked with the Clerks of the House before I went to the Joint Committee to find out what my duties and rights were. I was told that I could move amendments to the Bill, so I did and put forward the fact that the Abdication Act 1936 should be repealed. Their Lordships immediately raised their eyebrows, but if one applies the test of whether an Act is spent, obsolete, unnecessary or otherwise not now a practical utility, the Abdication Act 1936 neatly falls into that category.
There are two reasons why their Lordships did not accept my suggestion: first, it was coming from an "oik" and, secondly, it had not gone through all their machinery. They could not accept that somebody other than them could make a sensible suggestion about deleting some clutter from the statute book. There is probably a third reason: that there are some things that the establishment—particularly here—just do not like tampering with. They think that sensitive issues such as the Abdication Act, although spent and obsolete, raise matters into which they do not want to trespass; my suggestion was therefore rejected.
I particularly drew their Lordships' attention—and I do so here this evening—to what is contained in part II of schedule 1 to the Bill, which will repeal some words from the Regency Act 1937. I detain the House on this matter because I think that there is an important point of principle here. It is my view that some Acts of Parliament are not the sole property of this Parliament. They are what I would call constitutional Acts—those that relate to the

Head of State and the matter of succession. They are the property not only of this legislature but of some 15 or 16 legislatures in the world where Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State.
We must pause and think whether it is a matter of constitutional propriety that we should make that amendment, because the Regency Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931, so it can be repealed or amended only in accordance with the provisions of that statute.
What was the Statute of Westminster? It said that the dominions, which in 1931 were Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish free state, are totally free and independent and that Westminster can pass legislation for them only at their request. It went on to say:
any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom".
It seems to me that any amendment to the Regency Act, no matter how small, is subject to that part of the Statute of Westminster that says that it cannot be altered—there is an impediment to its alteration or repeal—unless it is done with the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions. [Interruption.]
I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), as he is muttering.

Mr. Boateng: I am not sure that "muttering" is fair. I was thinking to myself in a sedentary position and articulating the thoughts as they came into my head. I would not describe that as a mutter.
My hon. Friend was making an interesting point, and I wonder whether he would share with the House whether he has raised the matter with the Clerks? It is something on which they may well have a view.

Mr. Mackinlay: I meant no discourtesy to my hon. Friend, but I must also come back to him with a retort and say, "Of course I did." Of course I raised it with the Clerks. I raised it with them extensively. Indeed, I would not have been able to persuade the Chairman of Ways and Means to contemplate calling some of my amendments in Committee later tonight if there was no credibility in what I have to say. So I passed the hurdle—if it was one—of discussing it with the Clerks.
Anybody who looks at the matter dispassionately will find that, although the hon. Member for Thurrock has no legal qualifications, he has a point—and, if he has a point, people should tread with caution. Given the ramifications, if this place ignores what I consider to be matters of constitutional propriety in relation to the dominions—of which there are some 16—there could be profound consequences.
Let us consider two hypotheses. First, let us suppose that Her Majesty the Queen wished at some stage to abdicate, retire or relinquish her main duties, and to hand over to a regent. Secondly, let us suppose that the Prince of Wales divorced and wished to marry again. Legislation would be needed in the House of Commons, and in every other legislature where the Queen is Head of State. That is why we cannot trespass regardless into the Regency Act: the matter must be dealt with simultaneously in the other legislatures.
On 27 April, I asked the Under-Secretary whether, if we were contemplating repealing or amending the Regency Act, other dominions would be consulted in


accordance with the Statute of Westminster. He replied that they would. Subsequently—I rather regret this—I asked a further question relating directly to the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, drawing attention to the fact that the regency legislation was to be amended. The Under-Secretary then replied, "I am advised that it is not necessary."

Mr. Donald Anderson: Was that a distinction between something that was necessary as a result of a statutory obligation, and something that was courteous and proper as a result of a convention?

Mr. Mackinlay: My own view is that there is an obligation on us to consult the dominions. Under the Statute of Westminster, they have a right to say, "We would like Westminster to enact the legislation on our behalf'; but things have moved on since 1931. Canada, for example, has had its constitution repatriated. Canada would now encounter an impediment in asking Westminster to legislate for it, even if it wished to do so, but it should nevertheless be advised of the need to amend the Regency Act and make it part of its own constitutional legislation in Ottawa.
From what I can make out from parliamentary answers, Her Majesty's Government did not extend that courtesy, but they should have. I consider this a dangerous precedent. While the repeal amendment may be pretty obscure and, in an overall context, unimportant, it is not unimportant in terms of constitutional principles and proprieties. It illustrates the fact that we need a present-day equivalent of the imperial or dominion conferences of 1926 and 1930, which were precursors of the introduction of the Statute of Westminster, to clarify how we should deal with amendments to regency legislation and legislation relating to succession, and so forth.
I asked the then Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), which of the dominions to which we had granted independence had in their constitutions provision for the application of section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. He replied:
This information cannot be obtained at a reasonable cost"— [Official Report, 28 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 873.]
I find that astonishing and dangerous; but it probably also explains why the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department changed his mind in the time between two parliamentary questions. One parliamentary answer said, "Yes, of course we will consult about the changes to the Regency Act legislation." A few days later, when I pointed out that an amendment was being proposed in the form of the Bill that we are discussing, he changed his mind and said, "I am advised that it is not necessary."

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend should not be surprised when the Minister changes his mind on a matter because of amendments. The Minister seems increasingly prone to do that and I doubt whether my hon. Friend was surprised by the Minister's response to his amendment, was he?

Mr. Mackinlay: That Minister is one of the nice people in the House and has always treated me very courteously. However, I was disappointed because I had hoped that he would see that there was a matter on which he should caution the Lord Chancellor and other Ministers—that this part of the Bill ought to be amended

because it trespasses on the sensitive area of interfering with the law of the dominions, because the Regency Act 1937 is part of their law.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I am puzzled, but not surprised, by the response that it would require a disproportionate charge to public funds to find what is, after all, a relatively simple answer to a simple question. One knows how many dominions there are and any reasonable Commonwealth constitutional lawyer could speedily ascertain from the relevant textbooks the answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Mackinlay: I cannot help feeling that somebody advised the Under-Secretary not to take too much trouble on the matter because, "The hon. Member for Thurrock will not be taken seriously." If people do not take this matter seriously, sooner or later there will be acute embarrassment. That will arise either because of circumstances relating to Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales, or when there is a need for new regency legislation, and this place stumbles across the fact that there is no real mechanism for consulting the Governments of the dominions of which the Queen is Head of State and those Parliaments simultaneously enacting the necessary legislation.
I can live with the arrogance that has been demonstrated against me by the Government and by some very distinguished Law Lords, but sooner or later the crunch will come. When it does, I shall not hesitate to remind the House that I told it so. First, there is a need for this matter to be taken out of the Bill. Secondly, during the Commonwealth Prime Ministers conference this week, the Prime Minister should at least initiate some side discussions with the Prime Ministers of those countries of which the Queen is Head of State and talk about the need for a conference to find a mechanism to deal with Acts that transcend national boundaries and are not peculiar to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but relate to other countries too.

Mr. Anderson: rose—

Mr. Mackinlay: I shall give way for the last time, because I am trying to concentrate and it takes great skill to do that on these issues.

Mr. Anderson: As I recall it, the Bill came before the House in July and was suddenly removed without explanation by the Government. Was my hon. Friend told whether that was in response to the interesting point that he had raised to which it appears the Government had no answer at that time?

Mr. Mackinlay: That matter was on my original notes, but I deleted it. Earlier today, Madam Speaker spoke about the courtesies of the House. In July, I came prepared to make the speech that I am now delivering and tabled amendments. Without any explanation from the Minister or his parliamentary private secretary, the matter was "pulled"—I think that is the term. In any event, it did not proceed. I thought that that was rather bad form by gentlemen, but I have to live with that.
It should not have happened, particularly when I was asked today through certain channels whether I intended to press my amendments to a vote. That seems one-sided. People want me to extend some courtesies, but courtesy was not extended to me in July. That, however, is a matter


of history. I just want to reiterate that, sooner or later, unless the Government take this matter up with some vigour with the other Governments, it will return to haunt the House.
The proposal in the Bill's schedule is that the words "the Government of India" should be deleted. The argument is that that is clearly inappropriate as India is a republic. I accept that, but the subject of the dominions must be considered. In essence, one could argue that the Regency Act is obsolete because it would be difficult to implement. If and when it needed to be implemented, because the monarch either had died or could no longer fulfil the duties of his or her office, there would be enormous problems in securing clearance of the dominions. The matter needs to be reconsidered. It is not therefore merely a question of words relating to India, which is now a republic; we must recognise that the Act is obsolete in relation to the dominions as well.
On that note, I hope that the Solicitor-General will reflect that the Government need to reconsider the matter and support the withdrawal of this part of the Bill.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: First, I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I allowed to speak on a subject other than the amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): We are on Second Reading, so the answer is yes, but hon. Members must speak on the Bill before us.

Dr. Godman: With you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would not do anything other than that.
I am concerned about certain parts of the Bill. My concerns are so serious that, unless I receive certain assurances from the Solicitor-General, I am prepared to divide the House. The introduction to the Bill claims that it is an
Act to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which … are no longer of practical utility".
I am not here to talk about the English Law Commission; I wish to question certain recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission.
May I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to schedule 1, page 32? It mentions the repeal of the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1821 to 1890. I am concerned about their repeal. Hon. Members may think that they are ancient and have no relevance today, but that is not the case. My argument—I am seeking guidance from the Government's Law Officers—is that those Acts strengthen the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1705, popularly known to Scottish fishermen as the Queen Anne Act.
The Queen Anne Act, which was passed in Edinburgh in May 1705, is still in being. I think that I am right in saying that, in relation to the interests of our inshore fishermen, it was strengthened by the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts. That is my concern. Do not some of those Acts strengthen the Queen Anne Act in certain regards?
The Queen Anne Act allows our fishermen to use our harbours for the landing of fish, the mooring of fishing vessels, the laying out of nets and other gear on the

quayside and the mending of gear and pots. It might be thought that that is a trivial matter, but I speak as an honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, and I can assure the House that every one of our members knows about the Queen Anne Act. I used it recently against the Scottish Development Agency and Renfrewshire Enterprise, which sought to drive some of our fishermen members out of the East India harbour in Greenock.
I am not sure whether the Solicitor-General knows that the 1705 Act was incorporated in the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was felt at the time that the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts passed so long ago in the 19th century could stand on their own in relation to the Queen Anne Act.
With my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), I played a small part in that initiative, and the Scottish Fisheries Minister who so graciously accepted our amendment so that the Queen Anne Act continued in being was the then Mr. John Mackay, who these days is a Minister in another place. He recognised the importance not only of the Queen Anne Act but of the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts of 1821 to 1890.
I ask the Solicitor-General whether I am right in my assumption that the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts strengthen the protection that was given to fishermen 120 years earlier, just before the Union took place in 1707. Are those Acts being repealed because he and his colleagues believe that they are in contravention of European Union fisheries laws? Do Ministers believe that the Acts—despite what the Scottish Law Commission may have recommended, they give our fishermen some protection—conflict with regulations brought into being by the EU common fisheries policy? Are the Government heading off a possible dispute with the European Court of Justice?
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give me his word that the repeal of the herring fisheries Acts will not harm in any way the interests of our inshore fishermen? I remind him about the six-mile limit to our territorial waters. Indeed, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), is quite an expert on such matters, and if he had not taken a vow of silence, he could probably come to the Dispatch Box and give me the assurance I seek—that, by and large, within that six miles we are still in control of our fisheries and fishing grounds, and that it is in general those inshore waters to which the herring fisheries Acts applied and, I believe, still apply as we approach the end of the 20th century.
I make no apology for detaining the House, because such matters are of concern to our fishermen in Scotland. As I said earlier, somewhat immodestly, the Queen Anne Act was used against the Scottish Development Agency, and then Renfrewshire Enterprise, when an attempt was made to drive our fishermen out of the East India harbour.
When I told the Scottish Development Agency's lawyers that it could not throw fishermen out of our harbours, they confessed that they knew nothing of the Queen Anne Act. I seek an assurance from the Minister that in throwing out the Acts we shall not harm our fishermen in any way. That is particularly the case in respect of the development of our harbours in the interests of those who would promote the tourist industry over and above the interests of our fishermen and their families.
I am looking for an assurance that the Scottish Law Commission consulted widely, and by that I mean with the fishing communities. I also want to know whether the Solicitor-General—as there is no Scottish Office Minister here—is of the considered opinion that our fishermen will not be harmed in any way by the repeal of the Acts. If he cannot give me that assurance or promise he that he will investigate my concerns, I am prepared to divide this House.

The Solicitor-General: I shall deal first with the point exercising the mind of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I think that I can reassure him about the workings of the Bill in relation to the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1821 to 1890: only the collective short title of the Acts is repealed by the Bill. The contents of the Acts were repealed between 1934 and 1984. The one exception is the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771, which the Bill does not touch.
Accordingly, the Joint Committee in another place reported that the enactments proposed to be repealed under the Bill were no longer of practical utility, and approved their repeal. I hope that, with those words, I have set the hon. Gentleman's mind fair with regard to the White Herring Fisheries Act.

Dr. Godman: Will the Solicitor-General assure me that the Government have no intention of repealing the Fisheries Act 1705?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that we are in the Hallowe'en season, and that we are fast approaching Christmas, but I have not just fallen off a Christmas tree. I have no intention of giving any such undertaking, which will not surprise him.
I wish to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who asserted that there was a "logjam" in law reform and in the enactment of statute law repeal Bills. I am pleased that we will be able to rely in future on the full-hearted support of the Opposition both in this House and in another place in regard to law reform and the related matter of statute law repeal. But we must distinguish between them, as they are not the same. Every Act proposed for repeal—this Bill proposes to repea; many—needs detailed research, and those undertaking that work constitute only a few of the Law Commission's staff.
There is no financial constraint. It is quite simply that research takes time, even with modern methods, computers and extensive databases. The commission must give equal priority to law reform measures, and these take up the greater part of manpower resources. Mr. Justice Brooke is to be congratulated on the energy with which he performs his duties as chairman of the Law Commission.
I have carefully considered what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said and have carefully read the exchanges in the Joint Committee between him and the parliamentary draftsman about this and related issues. Having given the matter my best consideration, it is my concluded view that he has, albeit inadvertently, fallen into error in his interpretation of the Statute of Westminster 1931.
If the hon. Member for Thurrock would care to elaborate the arguments contained in his amendments, I will attempt to do them full justice. In summary, for the

present I limit myself to saying that the Statute of Westminster requires the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions to any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne—I emphasise, the succession to the throne.
The Regency Act 1937 does not have that effect. It merely erects a mechanism in case the sovereign is incapacitated. That is why, in substance, the Statute of Westminster requirements do not bite on the provisions of the 1937 Act.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Regency Act 1937 was enacted in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of Westminster. From what I can ascertain, the dominions were consulted on that occasion, which buttresses my argument that its amendment or repeal would have to be conducted in accordance with the same procedure or procedures that have come into being subsequently—for example, Canada now has a repatriated constitution.
In any event, there is also the question of common courtesy. The Government should have shown courtesy to the other 15 or 16 dominions by saying that we were contemplating making this marginal amendment and asking whether they had any objections or whether there was any impediment. That was not done, which was discourteous, but I think that it was also necessary because the 1937 Act was enacted in accordance with the Statute of Westminster.

The Solicitor-General: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. When the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, moved the Regency Bill in this House, he made its function clear. He was explicit in explaining how it affected only the sovereign in the circumstances that I outlined. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no constitutional impediment and no discourtesy in regard to the proposed repeal. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office have been consulted. No one else ought to have been consulted, either in law or in courtesy. I must repeat that, in suggesting otherwise, the hon. Gentleman is in error.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

REPEALS

Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in schedule 1, page 27, leave out lines 26 to 28.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in schedule 1, page 27, line 27, column 3, at beginning insert
'and communicated to the Governments of Her Majesty's Dominions'.

Mr. Mackinlay: I will not detain the Committee unduly, because I have referred to much of what I wanted


to say on Second Reading. Nevertheless, I think that we are in danger of committing a serious error by including this repeal in the schedule. It would be appropriate, in accordance with amendment No. 2, to leave the Regency Act 1937 as it is. The Solicitor-General should raise with the Prime Minister the need for some review of legislation such as the Regency Act with other countries' Prime Ministers.
If we trespass in making this repeal tonight, we will offend the constitutional position of several countries. It will certainly have political ramifications, because we will be rather arrogantly altering a law that forms part of their constitutions. The danger is that, at some stage, we will find that we are in great difficulty having crossed this line. I hope, therefore, that the House will be persuaded to change the Bill in accordance with my amendment. Constitutionalists in Canberra, for instance, may discover that it was wrong for us to have so acted.
In any event, I hope that if our proceedings are reflected upon elsewhere, others might say that we need to reconsider the regency legislation. I disagree with the Solicitor-General: the Regency Act does relate to the succession. He has put a narrow and wrong construction on it—in my view it is squarely part of the obligation provided for under the Statute of Westminster—which clearly states that such action must be taken with the dominions acting together.
The Regency Act needs to be reconsidered, because, if ever we did need such a provision, there would be political consequences in other Parliaments, especially in Canberra. Some would take a leaf out of the book of the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State, who used the succession crisis in 1936 to abolish the post of governor general and create the presidency of the Irish Free State. The point that I made on Second Reading is valid: if the matter is treated with disdain and not addressed, it could have consequences in future.

The Solicitor-General: I invite the House to reject the amendment, if the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) persists with it.
He is quite wrong to suggest that the Bill has any effect on the constitution of any other country. It says quite explicitly that it affects only the law of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. I repeat that it will not have any effect on the law of any other country.
Out of deference to and respect for the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Thurrock, who has obviously spent a good deal of time researching the matter, let me go into a little more detail, starting with the Regency Act 1937.
Section 2 of that Act made provision for a regency in the event of the total incapacity of the sovereign. Subsection(2) states that a declaration of the sovereign's incapacity under section 2(1)
shall be made to the Privy Council and communicated to the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions and to the Government of India".
The Law Commission has recommended the repeal of the reference to the Government of India. That is not surprising given that such a reference has been obsolete since the enactment of the Indian Independence Act 1947. That is obvious, as India and Pakistan became republics in 1950 and 1956 respectively. Many such obsolete

references in pre-independence legislation were repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976. It is only because of an oversight that those words remain on the statute book to this day. Had they been spotted, they would have been removed in 1976 and the hon. Gentleman would have been spared the endeavours in which he has obviously been engaged over the past few months.
9.45 pm
The hon. Gentleman's objection to this repeal seems to be based on his assertion that the provision relating to the Government of India cannot be repealed without consulting other Commonwealth countries in accordance with the Statute of Westminster 1931. As I have tried to explain, that is not the case. The Statute of Westminster requires the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions to any alteration in the law that touches the succession to the throne. I stress the words, "succession to the throne".
However, during the passage of the Regency Bill, it was made clear in Parliament by the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, that the Bill did not have that effect. It was merely a mechanism to enable the Crown to continue to operate when there was some impairment of the sovereign's health. So it did not require such assent prior to enactment, and it follows that no such assent is now required to repeal the Act or any part of it.
This Bill will have effect only on the law of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. It will have no effect on the law of any other country. For those reasons, I consider it appropriate that the obsolete reference to the Government of India in section 2(2) of the Regency Act should be repealed, as recommended by the Law Commission.
The Government also oppose amendment No. 3, which would have the effect of introducing additional repeals. As its long title makes perfectly clear, the Bill is based solely on the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The commissions have made no recommendations for the repeal of any part of the Regency Act, other than the reference to the Government of India in section 2(2). No evidence has been brought to the attention of the commissions or the Government that other aspects of the legislation are of no practical utility. In those circumstances, it will be wholly wrong for additional repeals to be inserted without further careful research and without the support of the Joint Committee.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider this matter further and, if he is now satisfied, to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Mackinlay: I have reflected carefully on the Solicitor-General's comments, and I am grateful for his detailed explanation. Clearly, I have had an opportunity to give this matter an airing on Second Reading and in Committee, so I do not wish to press it to a vote. I hope that the Government will consider the wider implications of the matters I have broached in Committee and on Second Reading. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Law Reform (Succession) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified].

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill represents a useful and uncontroversial measure of law reform. I should like to thank the Law Commission for the careful work which it has put into the preparation of reports on which the Bill is based. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Paul Boateng: This is a welcome, long overdue, modest reform. The Law Commission is to be congratulated.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am sure that, once again, the House would wish to join me in thanking the law commissions—I must be careful to put that in the plural—for their careful and thorough work.

Mr. Paul Boateng: This is a measure that has received careful and detailed consideration in another place and, albeit of necessity, less detailed but nevertheless careful consideration in Committee in this House.
We have had a number of concerns, not least in relation to the impact of the legislation on the freedom of expression. We have also quite properly made known our concern to ensure that the Bill does not in any way enable the impact of foreign jurisdictions and foreign law to inhibit such freedoms in this country. We are satisfied that the Bill in its current form has met those objections. We thank the Law Commission for the work it has done, and we are grateful for the detailed consideration given to the Bill in another place. We give the Bill a fair wind tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Civil Evidence Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
For the third time tonight I should like to express our gratitude to the Law Commission for its contribution to law reform and to all those who have helped the smooth passage of the Bill.
The Bill abolishes the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings in England and Wales. It will make the law easier to understand and to apply. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Paul Boateng: We join the Minister in thanking the Law Commission. However, the best way to demonstrate our thanks to that august body would be to complete in its entirety the programme of work that it proposed, which we have considered during the present Session. I very much hope that we shall do that before the end of the Session.
If we do so, the Minister's words may have a slightly less hollow ring than they currently have—not as a result, I must add, of anything that he has said or done. If only the actions of some other hon. Members who are sitting behind him were not such as to give his words the rather hollow echo that they have tonight.
I do not refer to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is sitting behind the Minister, but, as is often the case, to those faceless, nameless ones whose visage and name feature only too clearly in the minds, not least the silent ones who sit on the Treasury Bench. We know who they are, and we will have no hesitation in naming them in the fulness of time. Now is not the time to do that; now is the time to wish the measure well. It is long overdue.
We welcome the review of the hearsay rules as they affect civil evidence. A similar review is necessary in relation to the way in which they affect criminal evidence, and we look forward to the time when that task has been completed and we are able to take through the House measures aimed in that direction. The court should be concerned primarily with being a forum in which the truth is able to speak for itself. The abolition of the hearsay rule in relation to civil evidence makes that more likely to be the case than it was hitherto.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DEREGULATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Anthony Coombs be discharged from the Deregulation Committee and Mr. David Martin be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That Andrew MacKay be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Piers Merchant be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

UNESCO

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Mike Gapes: Last week, the Prime Minister was in New York, participating in the 50th anniversary celebration of the founding of the United Nations. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the UN, and the Labour Government, building on the work of the wartime coalition, played a key role in its establishment on 24 October 1945. The Prime Minister was able to speak to the United Nations General Assembly on 23 October 1995.
In two weeks' time, on 16 November, there will take place in Paris the 50th anniversary celebrations of another important international organisation—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation—yet, as things stand, no British Minister will attend or speak, as our Government will be absent as a member of that 184-state forum, only sending officials along to observe.
That is especially saddening, because the United Kingdom played the leading role in founding UNESCO, which was established as a result of a British initiative taken in 1942, during the war. UNESCO was established and its constitution deposited in London, where its headquarters was initially based, and its first director-general and its assistant director-general for science were British.
The principle aim of UNESCO is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture, in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law, and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms that are affirmed in the charter of the United Nations.
For many years, UNESCO did very good work, with Britain having a dominating influence in every aspect—professional or otherwise. However, there were growing criticisms, which led, in 1984, at the height of the cold war, to the withdrawal of the United States, followed, one year later, by a similar decision by our Government.
The following reasons were given at the time: the Government thought that the so-called new world information and communication order was a potential threat to the freedom of the media; the concept of people's rights was controversial and was thought to challenge the universal declaration of human rights; there was thought to be some threat to freedom of transnational corporations to operate; there was thought to be duplication of the work of some other UN agencies.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Mr. Gapes: There was thought to be some lack of control over budgets, and much inefficiency in the administrative structures within UNESCO at that time. The organisation was also criticised for having too many people based at its headquarters and too few out in the field.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs considered the withdrawal from UNESCO in 1985. It came to the conclusion, shared by the Conservative majority on the

Select Committee—since 1979, all Select Committees on Foreign Affairs have had a Conservative majority—that withdrawal from UNESCO would be prejudicial to Britain's interests in science, culture and education, was likely to damage Britain's relations with the Commonwealth and the third world, and could have unhappy consequences for Britain's relationship with the United Nations as a whole.
In 1990, following the experience of Britain being outside UNESCO for five years, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs returned to the issue. It concluded that, because of its absence from UNESCO, Britain was failing to participate in important international initiatives in the fields of education, science and culture as fully as it might. Its report stated:
never has the need for such initiatives been greater, as political events in Europe, and all over the world, create a demand … which UNESCO is well designed to satisfy.
The Committee praised the work of the new director-general, Frederico Mayor, who had been elected in November 1987, and said that he was addressing those parts of the programmes to which the British Government had objected. It said that his proposals for structural reform held much promise. The Committee concluded in 1990 that, assuming those proposals were satisfactorily implemented,
we see no reason why the UK should not rejoin UNESCO in a year's time.
The Government rejected the Select Committee's recommendations, and said:
We will continue to monitor developments in UNESCO closely and look forward to the day when we can join a reformed organisation.
The Select Committee returned to the issue again in 1993 when it stated:
The British Government's objections to UNESCO's policies have been overcome. The only serious criticism of UNESCO still outstanding is the complaint that the organisation's expenditure and personnel are still concentrated at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris rather than being devolved to the field in those countries where UNESCO is working.
The then Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who has now moved on to agricultural matters, said in his evidence to the Select Committee, that "the objections" to rejoining UNESCO were "financial". The Committee report concluded:
The debate about UNESCO's policy, budgetary and management problems has been settled, broadly in the organisation's favour. Although further decentralisation is needed, we recommend that the United Kingdom should now seek to rejoin UNESCO".
Since the Government took us out of UNESCO in 1985, three Foreign Affairs Select Committees have considered the issue in detail and have recommended that we should rejoin. Despite their concerns, the Government have kept Britain out. Why? The main official reason is that "the objections are financial". The Foreign Affairs Committee was told that the cost of rejoining would have to be met from the existing Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Overseas Development Administration budget. But is that necessarily true?
The 1993 Select Committee report pointed out:
We do not commend the Government's approach to UNESCO as an inevitable competitor with the ODA for a share of a limited budget. UNESCO's remit is by no means simply that of a channel for development aid: UNESCO's constitution describes the organisation's role as promoting international collaboration through


education, science and culture to encourage universal respect for justice, the rule of law and the fundamental human rights and freedoms as affirmed in the UN Charter. Its work, in both developed and developing countries, includes the promotion of the free flow of ideas through the means of mass communication, advancing educational opportunities, conserving the world's cultural inheritance and encouraging co-operation in all branches of intellectual activity".
The £10 million to £11 million subscription fee for rejoining UNESCO is a gross figure. It does not take account of income that could come to this country to partly, or perhaps wholly, offset that sum. It is a modest figure in relation to the total dues that we pay for membership of international organisations. The United Kingdom has always gained at least as much from UNESCO as we put into it. If we calculated our gains on purely selfish, material grounds, there is a strong case for rejoining UNESCO now. However, I submit that we should look at it in the wider context of what we lose by remaining outside UNESCO, and what we would gain by rejoining it.
If the cost of rejoining were £11 million, that would represent 0.31 per cent. of the total Foreign and Commonwealth Office-ODA budget. The Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out in 1993:
only a third of the estimated cost would have to be found from new sources".
That was because we were funding some UNESCO activities, even though we were outside the organisation. In 1991, the Select Committee was told that United Kingdom and United Kingdom-related receipts from UNESCO totalled £9.5 million. In 1994, such receipts amounted to twice the sum paid by the United Kingdom as its assessed contribution.
The £11 million subscription is a gross figure, and payments to United Kingdom nationals employed by UNESCO, whether in Paris or in the field, were not taken into consideration. Rejoining UNESCO would allow an increased participation by United Kingdom nationals in the organisation's staff. Like other international organisations, UNESCO employs United Kingdom staff. However, since we left UNESCO, it has not recruited new British staff to fill vacant positions. Consequently, the United Kingdom component of UNESCO's staff, which used to be disproportionately large, has been declining year by year. The result is that British influence, Britain's contribution, and Britain's abilities and skills in this important international organisation are increasingly absent.
We are now far less able to influence the outcome of decisions taken by UNESCO, and our diplomatic influence has been correspondingly reduced. I must emphasise that UNESCO is not an aid programme, and the costs of membership should not come solely from the aid budget. Other departmental budgets, including those governing educational, cultural and scientific expenditure, should also be taken into consideration.
In 1993, the then Minister of State told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:
Of course we can join, we can go back in tomorrow, but in order to do that we have to find
the money,
because we are not going to get any new money".

More recently, however, the argument seems to have shifted away from cost. The Under-Secretary of State informed the House in an answer dated 22 May 1995 that the Government's objections had widened. There had been some progress, he said, with regard to bureaucracy, overspending, mismanagement, inefficiency and political bias, but not enough. It would seem, therefore, that, since the Select Committee's report of 1993, the Government have moved away from their previous financial objection, and seem now to be taking a more hard-line position.
Could this have something to do with the fact that, in 1993, it appeared that the United States, under President Clinton and with a Democrat-dominated Congress, was about to rejoin UNESCO; but that now, with a Republican Congress, the Americans have started to get cold feet? For the Government, the logic of and justification for rejoining does not seem to be quite as apparent as it was then.
The Government official line is that the matter is still under review, but the fact is that there has been no Government review of the workings of UNESCO in the past decade. The only organisation to have carried out such a review is the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which has three times recommended that we rejoin.
As for the latest developments, I have already mentioned the Prime Minister's speech to the United Nations. In it he said that there were some bodies that we should scrap—without specifying which. Significantly, the Financial Times and The Times of 24 October, in almost identically worded reports, said that British officials
have made it clear that agencies such as UNCTAD, the UN trade agency, UNIDO, the industrial development organisation, UNESCO, the scientific and cultural organisation, as well as the five regional economic commissions should be part of any review".
Does that mean that the Government's position has hardened even more? Instead of just saying that £11 million has to be found, suddenly the Government are assaulting the entire organisation in an attempt to destroy its very existence. I should be grateful if the Minister reassured us tonight that the Prime Minister's speech at the UN did not envisage an attack on UNESCO, and that the unnamed British officials either do not exist or were plain wrong. I would welcome a reassurance that the Government are still committed to rejoining UNESCO when they can find the £11 million.
To paraphrase the Prime Minister at the United Nations, we need frank and honest answers now. The world needs UNESCO.
I conclude by drawing the attention of the House to a speech made in the other place by the noble Lord Howe, on 22 March this year. He said:
It was, of course, during my time as Foreign Secretary that Her Majesty's Government decided to withdraw support from that organisation … But it was never intended to be a permanent step. The objective was to secure specific and essential changes in the management of that organisation. There was a clear implication that if those changes were achieved, our membership would be renewed.
He goes on the say that he wrote to the Prime Minister on 12 October 1993, and pointed out:
The merits of the case have already been substantially conceded … Certainly, I think it would be difficult to resist re-entry to U.N.E.S.C.O. for longer than two years from now. The United Nations organisation celebrates in Golden Jubilee in 1995 and U.N.E.S.C.O. would surely be an unstoppable bidder by then?


He concludes:
Therefore I ask with due diffidence: why have we not yet re-joined? I hesitate to conclude that Her Majesty's Government are still unable, 18 months later, to find the £11 million or so necessary. I hesitate to recall that when I was making my first budget I learnt to my astonishment that the estimated size of the PSBR was rounded to the nearest £¼ billion. I am still more reluctant to conclude that Her Majesty's Government are unwilling to take the necessary decision."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 1231.]
It is an inescapable conclusion that, under the leadership of its director-general, Federico Mayor, UNESCO has satisfactorily addressed all the problems that led the UK to withdraw. It is doing valuable international work. It is praised by many international organisations and organisations in this country. For example, I have a letter from the Royal Society of Chemistry, pointing out the importance of the work of UNESCO, and its desire that the UK should rejoin, so that it can play a part in the valuable work that needs to be done.
Many other organisations in this country would join me in congratulating the Government if they could see fit to get our country back into UNESCO before the 50th anniversary celebrations, so that we could continue to make a valuable contribution to it in the future. UNESCO's constitution states:
Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be reconstructed.
It is very regrettable that we have decided for the past decade to stay out of that construction process.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) for giving us the opportunity to review this very important subject this evening. As he rightly pointed out, the purpose of UNESCO is one which undoubtedly the Government, and, indeed, all right-minded people would endorse, and he himself read out article 1 of its constitution. It is worth reminding those who are not here this evening—of whom I fear that there are a great number—but who might wish to follow this from Hansard, precisely what article one says.
Its purpose is of contributing
to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations".
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the United Kingdom was a founder member of the organisation, its constitution being adopted in 1945 at the Institution of Civil Engineers in London.
In December 1984, the British Government gave one year's notice of their intention to withdraw from UNESCO, and the hon. Gentleman gave a review of some of the reasons that were given for that withdrawal. The most important reason at the time, I think, was the fact that we had serious reservations about the stewardship of the director-general, Mr. M'bow. We certainly did not share his vision of the way in which the organisation should go forward.
In particular, we were concerned about the proliferation of programmes without the elimination of those of marginal value; the slow progress being made on decentralisation, which the hon. Gentleman conceded; the inefficient and outdated administrative practices that effectively meant jobs for life for those involved—that was simply not acceptable as a way of running an international organisation; the inflated budgets, which included vastly excessive expenses for those involved in the running of the organisation; the duplication of activities with other United Nations bodies, in particular the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organisation; and special programme issues, particularly the New World Information and Communication Order, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which apparently tried to regulate the world's press in a way that could well be construed as an attempt at international censorship. I doubt that even the hon. Gentleman and other fervent admirers of UNESCO would argue that at that time we should have remained part of it; certainly, it was going badly wrong.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that vast progress has been made since those days. There have been real changes in UNESCO, and the United Kingdom Government have been working behind the scenes to try to secure those changes, so that we can review our position in regard to membership. I am happy to acknowledge publicly that progress has been made.
Recent UNESCO budgets have all generally respected the principle of zero real growth, which is consistent with United Kingdom policy. The establishment of the expert group on finance and administration matters has made the budgetary process more transparent. Progress has been made in reducing the overlap with the activities of other UN bodies. UNESCO's communication activities now focus particularly on promoting freedom of the press.
The work of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is very welcome. The Government always note the work of such Committees, as I am happy to report from my previous incarnation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, given my past participation in the Select Committee, I view Select Committees' conclusions with great concern, and accord them considerable weight.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) right in saying that the Select Committee is the only body that has examined the question properly? After it had reported three times that a certain course should be adopted, should the Government have heeded its advice?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right in saying that the Government should take note of what the Select Committee does, as indeed they do. It is not true, however, that the Select Committee is the only body that has examined the matter closely; the Government keep it under a constant and close review. Notwithstanding what I said about the value of the Select Committee's work, Select Committees, unlike the Government, do not have to find the funds with which to implement their recommendations. I shall say more about that shortly.
Let me return to the reforms that the Government do not consider to have been fully addressed. We do not believe—the hon. Gentleman conceded the point—that there has been adequate decentralisation. In 1991, a comprehensive study of the issue was undertaken by the


executive board; it concluded—rightly, in our view—that there was a need for clear objectives, and for field offices to be strengthened. Up until now, that has not happened. Last year, only 25 per cent. of staff were in field offices. We do not consider that adequate.
In 1985, we questioned the number and focus of UNESCO's programmes. There has been little significant improvement in that regard. We believe that more selectivity is needed; otherwise, UNESCO runs the risk of trying to do too much, and as a result programmes lose their impact.
In the same vein, we are concerned about the large proportion of staff costs in the overall budget, and about increasing administrative costs. We understand that, at the current general conference, the Canadians—with support from some other major donors—are urging that the general conferences, executive boards and meetings of the governing bodies of UNESCO's related organisations be made more cost-effective. Proposals include a reduction in the length of the conference and board meetings, streamlining of the agenda and less time allocated to formal debate. We are actively encouraging those proposals.
Of course, the failings that I have outlined are not unique to UNESCO, and our continuing review of UNESCO should be seen in the context of our wider review of United Nations bodies as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is important to consider the wider elements, to ensure that UNESCO is not taken out of context and looked at without due regard for the rest of the United Nations' activities. The review was given a fresh impetus by the agreement at the G7 Halifax summit on a package of proposals for UN reform.
It will have been clear from the Halifax summit communiquè, and more recently from the Prime Minister's speech at the UN50 summit on 23 October, that we firmly believe that the time has come for a thoroughgoing review of UN bodies in the economic and social spheres. In that we are not alone. There is a close identity of views on the issue among the G7 countries and in Russia, and the European Union has been in the vanguard of those who are calling for a fresh look at those structures as we approach the millennium.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South spoke about recent press reports which suggested that the Government intend to seek the abolition of UNESCO, the International Labour Organisation, the FAO and other organisations. Those reports are wholly misleading. What the Prime Minister said at last week's UN50 summit in New York should be quoted in full and accurately. He said:
as we form new bodies for new problems do we close down those no longer needed? Not enough. There are bodies we should scrap".
That represents one of several key questions that the UN and its members must address if there is to be genuine reform of the United Nations. Do some bodies need a total overhaul and do some need to be dispensed with altogether'? Those questions cannot be shirked when reviewing the work of the United Nations.
Together with our G8 partners, we are working to convince the UN membership at large that the questions raised by the Prime Minister in New York on waste, duplication, pre-emption of conflict, the planning, management and financing of peacekeeping and above all

on UN finances themselves have to be addressed seriously and soon. Inertia, not change, is the biggest threat to the future of the United Nations.
The fact that the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations had such an impact underlines the growing realisation that the reform nettle must be grasped. Over the coming months, we shall look to work with all UN member states in an effort to build a broad-based coalition to reshape the economic and social bodies in such a way as to make them more efficient.
The hon. Member conceded the financial implications of any decision to rejoin UNESCO. I appreciate that £11 million is not a vast sum in the overall financial picture. However, it is a major consideration in the light of the budget from which it comes, and we cannot look at it without looking at the consequences of transferring that sum from other useful areas.
To put the matter in perspective, I shall give some examples of how we currently spend £11 million. That amount is more than our total bilateral aid to all the countries in the Pacific. It exceeds our contribution to all the Commonwealth multilateral programmes, and in the diplomatic wing it represents more than 10 per cent. of our overseas commercial effort. It is approximately three times the running costs of all 10 embassies in the former Soviet Union. Therefore, it must be right that we have thought long and hard about United Kingdom membership. We shall continue to do that.
The hon. Member mentioned the possibility of spreading the budget through other routes. It is a long time since the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, and the reality is that we would not be able to fund UNESCO membership from other budgets. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office would have to find the money, and neither the Treasury nor my colleagues in other Departments would be remotely prepared to find £11 million from another source. It would impact heavily on our work.
I conclude by speaking about the United Kingdom's current involvement with UNESCO. Contrary to some misconceptions, we have not severed our links with that organisation. We have maintained a presence through our observer section in our Paris embassy, which monitors developments within the organisation, covering key meetings, such as the twice-yearly executive board sessions and the biennial general conference.
As in the past 10 years, officials from London will attend the current general conference which has just started. Therefore, we are keeping in close touch with UNESCO through that and other means, and we shall continue to do that, notwithstanding the fact that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: No. I should like to finish.
I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Ilford, South by saying that at the moment I cannot accede to his request.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The Minister has sat down.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.